Progressive vs Prog
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42194
Printed Date: December 20 2024 at 10:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Progressive vs Prog
Posted By: Raff
Subject: Progressive vs Prog
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 14:40
|
I've been meaning to tackle this issue for some time - hopefully the discussion will be of some use for the development of the site. Whenever the topic of the addition of some controversial artist crops up, a particular phrase seems to be recurring in those threads: "X is progressive, but not prog". While I am obviously familiar with the definition of 'progressive', after years and years of listening to music I am still at a loss to understand the difference in conceptual terms. If 'prog' means something that harks back to the great musical movement of the Seventies, then subgenres like Prog-Metal and Post-Rock shouldn't be considered prog, and only unashamedly retro bands should be included in the definition. I know many people equate prog with 10-minute-plus tracks, concept albums, outlandish lyrics, intriguing cover art and such - then again, there are many acts included in our database who don't really fit this description. As a matter of fact, the 'prog quotient' of numerous acts has been the basis for many an animated discussion on the forums, sometimes even descending into a full-scale flame war. I have often been known to say that what is prog to me may not be so to someone else. For this reason, I'm quite interested in hearing what forum members have to say about the issue, especially as regards the problem of distinguishing between 'progressive' and 'prog' whenever certain bands or artists are suggested. |
Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 14:54
|
Progressive and prog have always been interchangeable for me. Art Rock as well. I see you still haven't crossed over to Crossover Specialist.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 14:59
I am a Heavy Prog specialist... My other half is the Xover man!
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:08
|
I don't think there is one answer to your question, Raffaella. People (including myself) use this ambiguity (theoretically prog and progressive should be the same thing, but they aren't, at least not when being used in conversation) to develop the subtleties they each feel they couldn't express otherwise. And each of us has another idea to express, therefore...
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:09
|
The term 'prog' is perhaps synonomous with a type/s of 'rock' but 'progressive' can be applied to any music that is experimental. Both have a place in the archives in my humble opinion.
Basically, anything from King Crimson to Radiohead is 'prog rock' and anything from Brian Eno to Aphex Twin is progressive. Thats my humble nerdy take on it anyway.. 
That said, pedancy can bring me out in hives, so if someone says 'hey, it's all just prog man' I can live with that.. 
|
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:13
progressive and Prog are obviously not the same, but maybe youngers and some other people will disagree, nice thread by the way.  |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:13
|
As far as I'm concerned there is Progressive Rock (with a capital P) and this is a particular genre of music which is mainly the "classic" bands of the 70s (we all know who the main ones are) and also extends to a number of current bands such as Spock's Beard. There is also progressive music (small P) which applies to any band who are pushing out the boundaries. This would include such bands as GYBE, Thinking Plague, who I wouldn't personally call "prog". I usually think of it like this - if a major record shop such as HMV had such a thing as (God forbid) a progressive rock section, which bands would they include? Yes, Genesis, ELP, Marillion - yes. Jazz-fusion bands - no. Post-rock - probably not. |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:19
|
Would I say that my Sony DVD is "Prog" only because it has "progressive scan"? Well, no... That's when you see the difference between Prog and progressive, this last one is just an adjective.  |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:27
I am eagerly awaiting the coming of the cross-dresser prog sub genre. David Bowie perhaps? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Ghost Rider wrote:Posted By: Froth
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:29
| for a band to aspire to be progressive is very good thing and for a band to aspire to be 'prog' is a very bad thing, and extremely un-progressive. its that simple |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 15:39
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:01
This would work, except for the fact that I find Neal Morse, Transatlantic and Frost* in the metal sections of HMV, and Threshold in pop/rock, there the last people I would trust! ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:02
That's pedantry
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:03
Very good well spotted..
|
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:19
Is there a difference? I interchange them  .
|
Posted By: dave-the-rave
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:37
You mean between 'pedancy' and 'pedantry?' If so, Yes. |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:45
|
Prog is what fits the definition of progressive rock as a genre... progressive is any good(doesn't even have to be good) band that progressed their sound over the years... I know plenty of metal, rock and even hip-hop that's progressive but by no means prog. Something that's not progressive doesn't have to suck either, for example Dire Straits hardly changed their sound but a they're a great band nonetheless. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:46
|
There's no difference, prog is just short for progressive. Both words are used FAR too often to talk about the bands on this site (being called prog archives, that's expected). It's a shame, though, that we pigeonhole all these bands that are vibrantly different from each other as "progressive". To me it seems like a tool used by teenagers who only know genres, and who want to be able to judge each other on what music they listen to. We have to realize that progressive rock isn't a genre, it's a movement. It WAS a movement, now it's a revivalist movement. There was never a genre called "prog", contrary to every music snob college student's belief. Why do I say this? Why does the word "prog" bother me so much? A few reasons. Firstly, people who use it don't really care what they're talking about. All this talk about people wanting to write prog songs and go to prog shows and laugh at prog clothing, it shows a superficial understanding of the music and that's not at ALL what we have this website for. The bigger reason, though, is the bands themselves tell themselves, "let's become a prog band" and instead of being a band that is truly progressive and pushing music's boundaries, they pick and choose a band from the 1970s and blatantly rip them off. I'm looking at you, Galahad, Dream Theater, and basically every band in Progressive Metal who sounds like each other. It's a destructive word to use habitually, I don't use it at all. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:14
|
'Prog' is exactly the same as 'progressive', but originally it had a derogatory ring to it.
Before I landed on Progarchives, "Prog(ressive) Rock" seemed more or less the same to me as (what this site calls) "Symphonic Prog". I first started listening to the Soft Machine, Hatfield and the North, Gong and Robert Wyatt in the 1970s but I never called them Prog. They were "Canterbury Scene" to me, i.e. one kind of avant-garde. Same with Can, Neu and several other (first-rate) Krautrock bands. In fact they've got just as much in common with Yes or ELP as the Simple Minds or Public Image Limited! If you want to call them "prog", that's fine with me, but you know: IT's JUST A LABEL! In any case, I'm happy to see such a wide range of bands here (although I really don't care for Metal): most of the rock artists I happen to like are on this site, and it's great to hear such a lot of people enthuse about them. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:19
I think we're missing the whole point here. " Progressive vs Prog" If progressive and prog were to take on each other in a grudge match, who would win?  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:25
|
The term progressive rock seems to have come out of the progressive music scene of the late 1960s, when, like many terms, it came into fashion, then dropped out again pretty quickly.
It came into wider use in the mid-late 1970s with reference to what we consider "Prog Rock" now - a much tighter definition that includes bands like Genesis, Yes and King Crimson, but excludes bands like Led Zeppelin.
With the original term, if it sounded a bit arty, experimental, or the favourite - "jazz-influenced", then it was progressive music.
The later term seems to refer to bands that concentrated on songs or instrumental pieces which were in effect tightly structured improvisations, close in spirit to modern jazz, but clearly based in what became known as rock music.
This helps differentiate it from bands that simply added improvisational passages to rock songs, or made rock songs sound more elaborate with exotic instrumentation.
Both are progressive in their own way, but one is really progressive rock music (ie rock music that is progressive in style), while the other is "Progressive Rock" - not just a style to be limited to lead solo passages, but a completely artistic way of writing rock music - a "spirit", if you like.
It's clear that it's not a style when you consider the extreme differences between the "major players" of Progressive Rock in the early 1970s.
Later progressive movements appear to have been style-based, just as the earliest one was. With very few exceptions, these "movements" seem to have comprised a progressive approach to song writing, focussing on particular stylisations or techniques rather than the complete package.
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:26
| Prog because its in the masses! |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:02
IVAN ! ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Gentle Tull
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:12
I agree completely. This is my only problem with many bands and with this site in general. ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:21
I don't think that this is what people mean by "progressive". Sure, you can take it literally and say "band x is progressive because they evolved significantly between albums a and b". But this says nothing about the music ... I rather think that "progressive music" is simply music which is more complex, serious and artistic than what you would typically call "mainstream" or "pop(ular) music". Listening to it requires your full concentration ... you need to "learn" the songs, get familiar with their structure in order to fully appreciate them. "Music for the mind" is another phrase that IMO describes it well ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:42
Ya know. Come to think of it, you're absolutely right.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:45
ahhhh... good one.. as far as distinguishing ... easy.... prog was a movement... an idea... progressive refers to qualities of the music. where things can get hairbrained is when some bands are considered prog even if they are not all that damn progressive musically ... and other progressive as hell groups.. just won't be seen as prog, usually for some sort of personal bias. Somewhere along the line.. for the fans... for us in how see this stuff.. prog stopped being about experimentation and throwing the kitchen sink into the music.. and started to be as formulatic as the pop music sh*t that we often decry. What the hell is prog about that. For many nitwits here... if it doesn't have 20 minute epics... mutlitple rhythmic changes.. and blaa blaa blaa.. it isn't prog. Sorry brothers... that isn't prog... that is formulamatic, phone it it bullsh*t. Prog always has been.. and to some of us.. always will be about not the fine print... but just trying to push the boundries... and to make people think. hmmm... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Froth
Date Posted: October 01 2007 at 20:07
fuxi, everything you say seems to be completly right. your clearly someone with very good taste indeed. i enjoy your reviews as well.
|
Posted By: ComfortablyNumb
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 01:43
Well put! I couldn't agree more. Cheers to you, CN |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:32
|
There's far too much arguing about
1. whether or not a band is prog and
2. what kind of prog they are.
If I don't agree with a band's inclusion in PA, that's OK, obviously some people do. If they want to discuss the merits of a band I don't like, I won't get upset. There's plenty more to talk about!
 ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:36
but isn't that, like, half the fun? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:41
frankly I disagree... language is important in order to communicate information and terms like 'prog' are used out of necessity and convenience. People who use the term "don't really care what they're talking about" ? You sure about that? |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:42
As long as you remember I'm right and everyone else is wrong! ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:44
of course.. I forgot, thank you |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 06:11
Unless they agree with me. Then they're right, of course! ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 06:34
|
'Progressive' is mainly about creating original auditory experiences (as vague as that may sound).
Prog is mainly about taking from those who are progressive. |
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 06:35
|
I hate this argument! It is the same thing. Both of them are the name of a genre, the genre that we are here to discuss on this message board. Progressive happens to be a word, like many genre names, but does not exclusively describe the genre it represents. Progressive music does not have to do anything 'progressive' to be part of the progressive genre. Rock music does not have anything at all to do with large clumps of minerals, pop music has nothing to do with soda water, all emotional music is not emo, and metal music can not hold up a building, nor cut vegetables. Seriously guys. It is just a name! ------------- I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t. -Stone Beard |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 07:18
And have you ever been hit in the head by a soft rock? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 10:26
| There's no difference to me. I just use 'prog' as a clipping of 'progressive music'. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 11:50
|
I`ve just read down the thread lots of different interpretations. I`ve become exhausted trying to define progressive rock, progressive rock etc. I think that if you enjoy the music it doesn`t really matter what genre, style or whatever it is. Progressive music seems to aquire a new sub-genre or addition at the rate a new species of animal or insect is discovered or becomes extinct..
------------- |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 12:55
And how exactly would you differentiate progressive rock from progressive rock?  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 14:08
.------------- |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 14:17
Ah, thanks much for the clarification.
Confused at last, confused at last, thank god almighty I'm confused at last. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 14:19
Now I think the question is, is progressive rock more prog than progressive rock? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 15:11
|
no no no you`ve got it all wrong progressive rock is more progressive than progressive rock . But sometimes progressive rock can be more progressive. Sometimes. But only when it`s more progressive.
------------- |
Posted By: vingaton
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 15:52
|
Music can be deemed progressive in nature if it pushes the cultural envelope, if it brings together elements often absent in most modern pop music. Progressive music sets new compositional styles in motion and pushes the boundaries of sound forward. However, music deemed to be Prog with a capital “P” has to be generally accepted as such by its advocates within their constructed category. If the Prog community has adopted a musical group its fans guard its position closely. Rock Bands from outside this accepted, but arbitrary, paradigm will not easily proceed past the gatekeepers of the notion of what is and is not Prog. Once welcomed within the Prog community, the group’s acceptance is rapid, and permanent. The controversial inclusions (at the time) of Santana and Deep Purple come to mind, but forward-looking bands like Santana, or innovators of style like DP, may eventually become recognized. Up to that point however they are merely been considered to be standard rock bands. Bands that continue to advance the state of music today deserve the same opportunity at transcendence from the mainstream to acceptance within the elite that is Prog. So, it is possible from time to time that progressive music will be deemed to have to progressed to the point of being Prog. New music and new bands are not different from the so-called original innovators of Prog. I would recommend that strict tuff-protecting Prog advocates adopt a pioneering spirit similar to the early masters like King Crimson and Yes. Reject stiffness. Become more open-minded as listeners and be honest, and even generous, within their discussions of what is, and is not, Prog. This approach not only guarantees fresh meat for the ears, but it will assure a future rise in Prog’s profile. Is that not what progress is? Isn’t that how things improve? Progressiveness and evolution are almost synonymous are they not? ------------- I want to see beyond that tree And defy the force of gravity |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 16:13
|
I am guilty of using the terms progressive and prog rather loosely to mean the same thing. When it comes to modern bands, I tend to consider bands whose sound is heavily "influenced" by the major prog bands of the 70's to mean progressive since to me that is the similar style of music. The irony of course being that these bands may be the least progressive since they may be less original in their sound due to their reliance on the sound from the 70's.
What this means to me is that I might not consider a band to be progressive even though that band might have a more original sound because they are creating new limits and new boundaries where music has never gone before. For the most part, my range of what is progressive doesn't reach to the same extremes as some of the bands labeled as progressive on PA reach.
Not being a musician, I don't get the same thrill out of the various nuances that musicians get. And to illustrate my lack of intelligence in these matters, the fact that a typical thrash metal bands plays using a 13/13 time signature (or would that be 2/2, I'm not sure how that works to speed up from 4/4), when a thrash metal band comes along and plays at 13/8 (or would that be 3/1) I have no idea; it is still thrash to me. I will conceed that it might be progressive thrash, but it is still more thrash than it is prog.
(On the other hand, 90125 and Invisible Touch are the most proggiest albums ever). Just kidding, but I know that I am in the minority here in that I actually like these albums. -------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 16:51
|
I think we were finally starting to get somewhere. Where it is, I don't want to know...
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 17:08
I haven’t read all this thread, but I believe it should be obvious for everybody in this moment, we have answered this question thousands of times:
The characteristic of being progressive is only one of the possible attributes of Progressive Rock bands, but of course neither a Prog band has to be progressive neither all progressive bands are Prog. Here is a short list of albums that may be considered progressive because they were far ahead of their peers: · Out of Time by REM · Joshua’s Tree by U2 · Bat Out of Hell by Meatloaf · Climbing! By Mountain · Hotel California by The Eagles As you see, all are progressive albums,. but none is part of the Progressive Rock Genre
Here’s a short list of Prog albums that are not progressive because they didn’t invented anything new or were more advanced than the pioneers: · Revolutions by Magenta: Recreation of the 70’s Symphonic admitted by the author. · Hybris by Anglagard: Radicalization of the 70’s sound · In Haze of Time by Trespass: Clear 70’s influenced album · Starcastle: Not even original, Yes clones, but still Prog band · Abarax: Should pay royalties to Pink Floyd (listen the sample “The Crying of the Whales” in PA) but still Prog. As you see, wee added in first place, 5 progressive bands that are not Prog and five PROGRESSIVE ROCK (Prog) bands that are not progressive,. So there’s almost no relation between both terms, of course some Prog bands are progressive because they are doing something radically new even for an adventurous genre. About the term Art Rock, I could understand this confusion if we were in the 70’s, but today almost everybody is aware that this term has mutated, first to represent the simplñest bands (what we call Prog related( and then to group bands that have little in common but are 100% Prog. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 17:18
|
Wait. We aren't in the '70's? When am I anyway? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 17:20
|
You could even go as far as to say that the whole of Progressive Rock is itself a sub-genre of Art Rock. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 17:25
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: cacha71
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 17:29
Good point. If you didn't know that it was called Prog or progressive, what would you call it? Why don't we all just enjoy the music and not worry too much about what label to attach! ------------- http://www.last.fm/group/Progressive+Folk |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 17:32
hahahhahah ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:00
I must add that he's progably right ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:03
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:06
Nah, I think he's confusing progressive rock with progressive rock, the differences are subtle, but any fan of progressive rock can tell them apart without even hearing the music. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:13
ahhh.... but what is rock http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=33 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=33 http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=6 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=6 and my favorite http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=32 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=32 ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:17
Ah, yes, but, no, but,
http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=18 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=18
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:22
oh you are a peach Dean... what, when, where.,.....why? ahhhhhh.... http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=28 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=28 *god I love quote pyramids hahah* ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:26
that's easy for you to say, but remove all the whatsname...
http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=19 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=19
------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:29
sh*t... I knew that was coming.
I'm retreating back to the crossdressing page.. though I'm afraid it's
too late to escape retaliation from Raff on this one ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:37
|
Every band I like I think is prog. And I demand that they all be on this site.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:41
|
Nowadays it seems prog = good music. HEY! I love Arcade Fire, I think they're progressive. Let's include them on the site! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 18:51
Exactly, it's in my collection, therefore it is prog. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:11
same here  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:15
Dude, tell me you don't actually have any Benatar in your collection/
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:20
you mean to tell me you DON'T have any? hell yeah.... all of them. Right next to my collection of Streisand albums. Man can't live on prog alone. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:21
|
Yeah, well I don't live on prog alone, but I prefer to supplement it with other stuff.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:22
|
I have Pat Benatar albums, but I draw the line at Barbara Streisand. Based on that premise that all my albums are prog, I also have a Paula Abdul and a couple of Samantha Fox CDs that snuck into my collection in a moment of weakness. Progressive bubblegum??? -------------
|
Posted By: Fight Club
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:38
I agree with you on this.
I think there is a specific prog genre which you speak of. This maninly consists of the 70s symph prog/art rock stuff. Now there are also bands whose genre wouldn't be considered prog, but aspects of their music are still progressive. For example, like you said, I wouldn't call Godspeed a prog band, but they're more of a progressive post-rock band. They don't make "prog", but the music they do make (post-roc) has many progressive qualities. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:46
|
HMV has a section called Metal - 60% of what's in there I do not consider to be Metal at all (when does Green Carnation come just before Green Day in Metal?) - I would not trust HMV to correctly classify anything as Prog for they would have a section in there for Solo Phil Collins and GY!BE would reside alongside Sigor Ros in the Dance section. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 19:54
hahahhah.... you could have that crap.... I'll stick with Barbs hahahhaha ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 22:28
Unfortunately there's another type of "progressive" music getting around its a techno dance type thing and its really starting to steal our title (crap is king and the good don't last long) anyway my point is calling what we like "prog" is the best solution the term progressive has been hijacked by something almost as bad if not worse than punk. I couldn't believe the audacity when I first heard about this progressive dance crap like how dare they ! 
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 22:44
| Prog isn't a real word, it means nothing. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 22:47
^ tell that to the good people of Prague   |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 23:42
A year agio a kid came and ranted "WTF, no Progressive House bands"
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: October 02 2007 at 23:54
| I've never, ever heard anyone refer to prog as Prog with a capital P, now all these definitions are based on whether or not the word is capitalized. It's getting ridiculous! Why can't prog just be a short form for progressive rock?! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 00:14
For God's sake, it's simply a matter of grammar
As simple as that. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 00:16
| Check out my Kraftwerk Computerworld review, I asked some of the questions about what is progressive in the forums there in the review. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 02:27
And you've been here since May?
Surely the site's name would have been your introduction to the word "Prog"
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 02:32
|
Prog simply doesn't exist as a term for me. In spanish, if I say "prog" I'm saying nothing. The terms here can be "Rock (...) Progresivo" o "Rock sinfónico". Due to society's lack of interest, the subgenres discussed here are nothing but labels for iTunes or winamp that everybody laughs about.
------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 03:03
Well, I suppose my question wasn't clear enough, or, as someone said, I just asked something that had been already discussed a million of times... I thank all those people who tried to answer my question in a constructive way (BTW, great review, Cheesecakemouse! ). However, half of this thread has been taken up by useless banter, which I found just a tad disrespectful. Therefore, I'd be grateful to the Admins if they could close it, at least for the time being.
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 04:02
------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 05:16
| There have been some useful and constructive posts along the way. let's give it a day or two to see if these continue. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 05:16
I wish that in record stores they would just sort *all* the artists/bands alphabetically and leave it at that. Not because genres suck, but because they simply don't know the artists well enough. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 05:37
Doesn't really matter, my local chain stores don't ever seem to stock what I'm looking for anyway. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 05:49
|
Here in Germany the big stores stock most of the new prog releases by larger labels like Inside Out ... but only like 1-5 CDs of each new release, and except for some rare exceptions (Porcupine Tree for example) they don't re-order when they're out of stock.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 05:55
If it weren't for the internet my music collection might be a bit more manageable. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 09:49
|
Since this site claims to be English only, then it seems to me we should use correct English (I know, my spelling is horrendous). Progressive is a real word that is defined in the dictionary so that it can be referenced to clarify things or settle an argument.
Making up words like Prog (or prog) and giving them arbitrary definitions is confusing and no help to those who are new to English. Besides, I don't mean to be dramatic, but arbitrarily rewritting definitions seems a bit Orwellian and is an easy way to distort history. It just seems silly to say that prog is anything but short for progressive. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 09:57
In as much as I would agree with you semantically. When a word is used to prefix a style of music it's original meaning becomes moot. For example Pop-Music was originally intended to signify Popular Music, Folk-Music has little to do with the dictionalry definition of the world Folk, where is the soul in Soul? and there is nothing classical about modern Classical music. (I'll stop here before we even begin to consider the etymological root of the word Jazz )------------- What? |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 10:09
Actually, the whole purpose of my question lies here. Since the name 'prog' has been emptied of all its former connotations - that is, music that was more complex and had more 'intellectual' claims than simpler, blues-based rock'n'roll - by it we have come to mean something that reminds us of that kind of music, which was popular in the early Seventies and then became very much a cult genre. This means that a lot of prog is NOT progressive at all, while there is a lot of music around that is genuinely progressive - yet, we say it's not prog. Personally, I feel this is becoming a bit of an exercise in pigeonholing, as well as a question of exaggerated purism on the part of some people. As I said in an earlier post, if we only consider bands whose sound harks back to the Seventies, we should delete half of the acts in the Database. If, instead, we accept the word 'prog' as a short form of 'progressive', we should be much more inclusive in our addition policy. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 10:15
| I have no interest in changing this site, but if it was up to me I would use the literal definition of progressive and be more inclusive. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 10:24
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 10:25
| As for "jazz", Miles hated the word and would never use it. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 10:46
I think we should officially call that Raffaella's Prog Paradox.
I agree wholeheartedly, however I think the simple answer is "you cannot". Even though the noun has adopted a different meaning from the adjective, it has been in common usage for too long for us to suddenly redefine its meaning. And even if you could that would not change a single opinion as to what constitutes a progressive band and what does not. Rather, we should "out-law" the use of the words completely when describing bands ... I would prefer that people gave considered and well reasoned explanations as to why a certain bands should be included or excluded than answering with a glib "They're Prog" or "They're not Prog" ------------- What? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 11:41
Well, here we refer to Prog everyday, and we live just above your country in the map.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 12:08
1.- Nobody is making words, Prog is just an abbreviation for PROGRSSIVE ROCK, we use lots in other genres and nobody says a word, lets see some:
2.- Yes, we can rewrite and redefine genres because in this moment Prog Archives is the lead site in the web, hardly anybody has a database with all the information we provide, we try to keep ahead, a few months ago the Symphonic Team coined the term Symphonic Renaissance to refer to the Swedish movement of the 90's, today I read it everywhere, people believes us because we have credibility, we have to do our best to keep it this way. 3.- Prog is not a short word for progressive, Prog is a short word for Progressive Rock, as simple as this.
If we added every progressive band like lets say REM, U2, etc, we would loose credibility, because our target auduience are the Progressive Rock fans.
Prog fans come here to learn about Progressive rock and being so open that we allow any band that is a bit ahead the mainstream inside, will make us loose identity, in the way we are doing the things, we are the N° 1 site in the net...........Why place all what we have gained in risk?
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 12:45
| Well I'll certainly agree with you in that I'm not interested in over exposed bands like REM and U2, talented as they may be. |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 12:46
|
^^^ This is all very true, but the labels are basically here for our users' benefit. It is a way for people who come to P.A. to more easily navigate our enormous database. The specific names themselves don't matter as much as the information they house. Sure, we want to have titles that best describe the music (and that leads to much debate), but it is the music itself that is most important. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |