Progressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory
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=51223
Printed Date: December 11 2024 at 16:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Progressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: Progressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 13:16
|
The recent additions and discussions (Metallica, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Steely Dan) got me thinking again about a theory that I developed a few months ago. On this website - and most others - only one criterium is used to describe the prog status of a band or album ... it's either less or more prog. Unfortunately reality is much more complex than that. The solution that I came up with attempts to make those discussions more manageable by introducing two different criteria: 1. Progressive Approach (is it truly progressive) 2. Prog Style (does it sound like established prog rock/metal music) The idea is that for each album/artist we try to determine whether it meets those two criteria independently of each other, and then establish rules based on those findings. Please have a look at this diagram:  The dashed line symbolises the threshold between what we could add as prog related at best (to the left of the dashed line) and the music we could add as prog (to the right of the dashed line). It is angled a bit because we tend to give the more progressive music a bonus ... of course some people would not do that. Some others might also decide to angle it even more, so that the most progressive music out there would not have to be in any prog style to be added. And of course some demand a threshold in the other domain (progressive approach) as well. BTW: The albums which I put in the diagram are only meant to be examples to illustrate the general principle ... of course you could put those bands anywhere you think they belong. Now ... am I totally "out there" or can some of you see some sense in this?  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 15:32
|
Not 'out there' at all. This diagram is an excellent tool in helping people see the factors involved in answering the age-old question "What is Prog?" Of course, individuals will argue that the dashed lines should be at different angles or further away from the axes, or even that one axis or the other ought not to exist. But I think it expertly summarises the conditions that exist on PA at present. Congratulations, Mike. I hope it enjoys a better fate than my venn diagram! |
Posted By: chaos8619
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 15:49
|
Waste of time and energy... all this effort to demonstrate what? Is music, you should enjoy it whatever is prog or not.
|
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 15:59
I thought you're Venn diagram was excellent, and this one is equally interesting. More knowledge and discussion concerning these matters will HOPEFULLY result in an ultimately smoother band evaluation progress for the site. I know. Who am I kidding?  |
russellk wrote:Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 16:04
No-one would argue with your second sentence, but I'd hope everyone would take issue with your first. We're human because we ask questions. How can such analysis be worthless? |
Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 16:23
Chances are Mr. Chaos won't be back..he only has 3 posts as it is..worthless n00b.
Anyway, I think it is a very interesting diagram..but how does MOP get stuck somewhere in the middle like that  ? I don't really consider the album..or band either Progressive by style or it having a Progressive Approach.------------- 
|
Posted By: Thandrus
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 16:25
|
I don't know... I think, no matter, whatever kind of diagram you draw, it all will remain too subjective anyway. First, everyone will argue indefintely, whether an album has a prog-touch or prog-style... Then where to put an album what must not belong neither to prog nor to related? Into that small lower left angle? then we'll have to add abut 60% of world's recorded output I think.. And... Hope Metalica will never be added.... Unless they turn Post Rock  Anyway nice try to sum up the things, can agree in som of the aspects. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:04
|
Thanks for all the replies! I'm glad that so far all the answers "fall into place" ... I anticipated most of the problems you mentioned. Of course this diagram will be unique for every person. They will place the bands/albums at different positions, and - as russellk pointed out - the boundaries between prog will vary from person to person. But if we could combine all the diagrams of all users, the result would probably be a good approximation of whether an artist should be listed as prog or not. It's no secret that I have a website (yes micky et al., feel free to post the inevitable jokular comments  ). There I have already implemented this idea in a very simple way:Every user can assign among - all the other tags - those two values to the music. It's very simple ... values range from 0 to 10, and the "prog threshold" is at 6 (prog related is 4). That way, the system can automatically compile averages ... and if either of the two values reaches 6, the track/album/artist is listed as "prog", if it only reaches 4 then it is listed as prog-related. Anyone interested in helping me filling the database can simply tag some albums at progfreak.com, there's no formal procedure or anything. This could also help PA ... the data submitted at PF could be used here as well, if only as a more complex type of poll, to gather opinions. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:10
|
This is a good theory. A lot of bands that get a lot of controversy seem to end up in the upper-left hand corner, which is why people don't think they belong here.
The only thing is that is there are bands like Meshuggah that sound NOTHING like Close to the Edge or Foxtrot and would belong only in the most upper-left part of the graph, past the dotted line, yet people don't have a problem with them here.
Also, if there's any band that sounds as proggy like CTTE or Foxtrot, but doesn't revolutionize music or do anything new to be progressive, they don't get very much debate, they seem to belong here just fine. So I beleive that the lines should definetely be at a much sharper angle. ------------- 
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:11
He didn't say it was "worthless" but rather a "[w]aste of time and energy"--subtle, perhaps, but distinct nevertheless. In any case, I agree with the essence of his post. Does such analysis (which no matter how thorough is doomed by its inherent arbitrariness) enhance the listening experience? Does it help musicians to perfect their art? It's doubtful that it'd facilitate either; in fact, it's unlikely that serious musicians even bother with such considerations. More generally, some inquiries are worth investigation, others are not; but ultimately, it's a matter of individual priority--I don't perceive the value in this question, but maybe some do. Also, it's a bit pretentious to christen this framework as a "theory." I'll concede that it's explanatory (however inadequate), but does it have predictive power? Does it have falsifiable claims? Verifiable claims? Testable claims? Even if it does, any results are devalued by the arbitrary premises from which they might be deduced. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:13
|
I think it is an excellent idea, but a personal one - i.e. it is an idea we each can all use (probably already do if we stop & think about it too long....) but with our own parameters and limits - all of us carry our own personal model of what constitutes Prog Style and Prog Approach, where the boundaries lie and either whether the axis are linear or logarithmic. Therefore I don't think it cannot be used as a general panacea to all our ills, but it is one that each of us can adapt to our own needs.
It is the age-old (well, relatively age-old  ) problem of how do you quantify and measure one band against another, objectively and subjectively?------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:19
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:23
I really liked your venn diagram ... but I guess it was a bit too technical, just like this idea. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Rubidium
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:24
|
It's an interesting idea. And any idea is better when there is a graph to accompany it. So you get bonus points for that, because I like looking at pictures. However, I'm not really sure that it really solves anything. So instead of trying to classify everything using a binary scheme (prog or not prog), we need to decide if a band would fall into the intersection of the prog approach and prog style hyperplanes, which more or less amounts the same problem we had before. Plus, as you point out, every person will have a different opinion as to where the two lines should be drawn. And even if there were a consensus, there would still be arguments about artists that are close to the edge of the prog region (Miles Davis, Steely Dan, etc.) and there may not be a consensus as to which side they fall. Now if you could come up with a universally accepted function whose domain is the set of all potential artists and whose range is a point in your Prog Style-Progressive Approach plane, then you may be on to something. Then there would be no argument concerning where a band would fall in your diagram, and it would only be a matter of establishing accepted boundaries and seeing where everybody falls. Sounds simple enough, now we just need somebody to work on that |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: August 24 2008 at 17:32
Well I'm just saying. I'd put Meshuggah and Tool in the far upper left, past the dotted line, and I'd put plenty of power metal bands that aren't here a bit past the intersection, where they would be a valid entry here. However, 99% of the time I don't have a problem about which bands are or aren't here, so I'm just saying that the graph doesn't match how this forum seems to accept bands. Maybe instead of two straight lines, a hypberbola or a curved line would work better?
Just a suggestion as to how I see the graph working. -------------
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 05:15
Nice to see some posts that completely miss the point of MikeEnRegalia's original post *OMG A TRACE OF SARCASMMZ* I'd be inclined to think chaos8619's post is trolling in this thread. Whether or not this "enhances the listeners experience" or "helps musicians to perfect their art" is not of concern here. It would be really nice when someone like MikeEnRegalia makes suggestions that can improve the site, that perhaps people actually help out instead of posting off topic stuff that just hinders progress. If everyone had been following the recent controversial suggestions for PA addiitons, they might actually have a clue what MikeEnRegalia is trying to achieve here. I think MikeEnRegalia made it pretty clear this topic was inevitably linked to bands addition process. Rant over, and let's lend Mike a hand here please. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 05:20
|
good thesis Mike, I'm not big on systems but this one is broad and flexible enough to be applied |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 05:46
|
I think at some level many of us already used this as a way of reconciling the sometimes widely different styles and aproaches of prog bands to facilitate their inclusion here, or at least what we as indaviduals consider prog. The one thing this has done is to put it into words and a visual exactly what we would consider for a band/album to be prog but it also highlites the fact that those dotted lines are going to move about and even change shape from person to person. Topofsm suggested that he'd put Meshuggah and Tool at the top of aproach but to the left of the dotted line in style, making it prog related rather than full blown prog, but for me those dotted ines would touch the axis. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 06:57
|
^ let me give you an example of how this works by assigning tags: We use a range from 0 to 10 for each tag (progressive approach, prog style), 4 is the threshold for related, 6 is the threshold for "full" (top/right sector). Using this schema, I would submit the following values: Meshuggah - Destroy Erase Improve: 6/4 Metallica - Master of Puppets: 6/2 Dream Theater - Images and Words: 6/8 Dream Theater - Octavarium: 4/8 Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime: 2/4 Genesis - Foxtrot: 10/10 Art Metal - Art Metal: 8/2 GY!BE - LYSFLATH: 6/2 Radiohead - Kid A: 8/2 Radiohead - OK Computer: 6/4 Iron Maiden - Powerslave: 2/4 Queen - Queen 2: 8/6 ... You disagree with those values? I hope so ... but the more people join in assigning the values, the more accurate the system can be in modelling the general opinion on the question. Now imagine that we all would submit tags like that for our favorite albums (ideally: to all albums we know, as we listen to them for the purpose of reviewing). I think that the results would be very interesting, and it's not much work. The cool thing is: As soon as those tags have been submitted, users could choose between different modes. For some - as you said above - a high progressive approach value is sufficient for listing something as prog, regardless of the style. For others the style is the most important thing. And there are those who demand both a progressive approach and a prog style. All that can be taken into account by the system.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 08:18
|
The progressive approach is also more defined for the Tech/Extreme Metal, like Atheist, Cynic, Spastic Ink, Watchtower and maybe Voivod. I think it's much more interesting that the Prog Metal approach which I personally find incredibly lame. ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 09:19
|
^ so you could rate the Dream Theater albums low on the progressive approach scale, but high on the prog style scale. By that you would agree that they should be listed as prog (metal), but that there are many bands which are much more (truly) progressive.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 10:15
|
To be honest, I liked your previous theory better. I think that this might be oversimplifying with 2 dimensions (criteria) versus a more complex model with three, four, or more criteria. I am thinking that the part that is missing for me is that each subgenre might have its own 10/10 center to be worked off from. For example, 70-74 Genesis or Yes might work well as the 10/10 for progressive symphonic rock, but how would these rate for judging post rock or prog metal. If these are the center points, then many to most of the bands in these other categories are probably going to rate 0's or 2's in their progressive sound or progressive approach in comparison to the icons of prog.
Again the danger of one's opinion (or at least the danger of my opinion) but as an example, a band such as Boston sounds a million times more like the icons of prog then a band such as Meshuggah or Fantomas does. And although arguably these two bands might rate high on the progressive approach side of things (both bands moved in a direction that I feel took music in a completely wrong direction but that is just one man's opinion based on musical tastes). In addition, I would think that it would be really hard to argue against Boston's progressive approach. They built their own studio, they built their own instruments, they would take 4 to 5 years between album releases because every note had to be perfect, etc. etc. The argument for and against Boston has been made and fought elsewhere numerous times, and that isn't the point of my post. It is just an example that I have used to show how a madman can take a perfectly intentioned formula to be used for the good of prog kind and it turn it in to a weapon of mass destruction to obliterate the boundaries of prog for all future users of the term.
 Alright, so now that I have reached this point, there probably is no point in posting this because it really doesn't make much sense and it doesn't really represent my proper opinion the way that I thought that it would when I started typing it, but since I typed this much already, I might as well add it to the pot for whatever good or bad that it might impose on this thread. ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 10:58
If that's your opinion ... then why not? But I think that some of those Post Rock bands range a little bit higher, and in Prog Metal albums like Pain of Salvation - Remedy Lane would get progressive approach level 8 from me. As far as the style is concerned: In my own opinion there are only two true main prog genres: prog rock and prog metal. post rock is not prog rock, post metal is not prog metal, jazz fusion is not prog rock. However, of course there are certain "blends" of styles ... for example you could see Canterbury as a combination of prog rock and jazz-fusion. You all have to decide how typical post rock (GY!BE, Sigur Rós, Mogwai ... as different as they are) fits on that scale from 0 to 10 where the most archetypical prog rock scores a perfect 10 ... as far as I am concerned: 4.
I don't think that that is how I would define progressive approach. The Eagles spent years preparing and recording Hotel California, but it's not progressive (maybe a 2). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:06
|
I suppose that opens it up to the next questions. If we can't seem to define "What is prog rock?", how would we define "progressive approach" or "progressive style"? I guess what I am asking, are there set definitions to these two terms, or are these again open to each individual's opinions? -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:15
|
^ I don't know about you, but when I listen to music I have a pretty good idea of how similar it is in style to the typical prog masterpieces of the 70s - as different and unique as they may be. I think that instead of trying to describe the elements of the music in a way which only people with a degree in music can understand, I'll try to simply set up some points of references instead. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:32
|
First, as somebody who read the former thread and found it interesting and also liked the venn diagram I think this is very nice idea to simplify and clear the world of prog. Ofcorse like any model it has to be simple to be usefull. We can write a theorem with 8 dimensions that describes it much better but none of us will understand how to look at it. I find the 2 axes sketch realy easy to understand and therefore quite helpfull.
However, I think that the reason for clasifying is not to decide if a band belongs here (or at least not only) but to help people search for music to their likings. I still don't know if this model serves that aim but it will be interesting to check it out.
I thought of a different (in a way) approach that was also based on 2 axes sketch but I never got to write about it so I'll describe it shortly here. On one axes I put Harmony (or melody) and on the other Complexity. a band like Renaissance will be high in both axes while KC will be very high on complexity and quite low on harmony. Lou Reed for example will be quite low on both axes. As you see I don't limit myself solely to prog. However I understand that all criteria are debatable and therefore we probably will never agree on it. Still I like the idea. ------------- omri |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:52
|
To be honest Mike, at this point, I really have no clue what makes a band progressive (big P or little p). I know that I like listening to a lot of music, with much of my favorite music having been created from bands that are listed on this site. My simplistic/rudimentary idea of what I consider prog is rock music which also includes what I consider to be jazz and/or classical music elements. Obviously, this definition can be extremely inclusive and certain lines need to be drawn, but where are these lines drawn? Phil Collins is a rock artist who mixes in jazz elements. As stereotypical as the opinion may be, it is said that in no uncertain terms Phil Collins is not a prog artist. Why? He's rock mixed with jazz, etc... Is it because the rock isn't complex enough? Is it because the jazz isn't complex enough? Is there not enough jazz? Too much jazz? Again, Phil Collins is an artist that has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere and not the point of this thread or my post. Recently, Sting was suggested and a heated discussion followed. Same arguments and questions apply. He mixes rock music with some jazz music with a lot of "world" music. For some, this qualifies as prog, but for most it appears that it does not. Steely Dan was recently added to crossover prog. A fairly controversial addition. The same arguments apply. They are a rock band with jazz elements. Is it argued that their jazz elements exceeded whatever that threshold is that made them labelled crossover prog? You are obviously well versed in the Metallica argument. Most are completely against their inclusion, but within those of us that support their inclusion there are those that feel that they deserve to be fully included in Progressive Metal and there is others, yourself included, who only feel that they are justified for prog related.
I listen to this music because it is what I enjoy. I am not and probably never will be a musician so therefore most of the musical theory is way beyond my grasp. I enjoy discussing this with you guys here on PA, but quite frankly I have no business joining in on these discussions since I am pretty much a rube when it comes down to it. I don't mean to cause trouble with stupid posts like this and the previous one, as I am trying to learn from what I post and what I read. As musicians are generally not athletic, I guess to relate if music were a baseball game and the musicians were picking teams, I would almost always be the last one selected. You might let me play because you feel that you have to, since I did show up with a ball and glove (or a guitar and drum stick) but seriously I have no business even showing up other than wanting to hang out with the bigger kids. I appreciate that you do humor me with responses to my posts, but please feel free to ignore me.
P.S. I apologize for my rambling post that really doesn't contribute anything to the point of this thread. And I'll just shut up now. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 12:04
|
^ I understand your dilemma. All I can say is that if you don't have a rational schema - like Certif1ed has - then use your intuition: Progressive approach: difficult to assess intuitively, but you can simply ask yourself whether the music is innovative and/or sophisticated. The more music you listen to, the better you'll understand. Prog Style: You know the typical prog albums ... Foxtrot, ItCotCK, CttE, Brain Salad Surgery, etc.. What I try to determine is how remote a piece of music is from those albums. You may include albums from other genres if you think that they're part of the prog movement ... so you might include Script for a Jester's Tear, The Perfect Element Pt. 1 or even Lateralus or Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven. These albums which you choose as references get the highest level, and the others simply get lower levels, with levels 0 or 2 for those which - in your opinion - are not compatible at all with prog in terms of style. For some this might be Rap, Hip-Hop or Euro-Dance, for others it might even include Post Rock or Prog Metal. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 12:04
|
Rushfan4 ! I have no idea why you keep appologizing. Like you I'm not a musician (and will never be) but that doesn't mean you (or I) have nothing to say. It's like somebody else will claim only skilled mathematicians can appreciate Mike's idea (and I know enough math to recognize a strong math background in this model).
Love yourself a little ! ------------- omri |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 12:11
|
^ agreed. I'd like to point out that there's no mathematical background required to use this schema ... I intentionally avoided to mention anything about numbers and statistics in the first post, in order not to scare people away.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Grimfurg
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:20
I think it has more to do with influence. Per say, DT have more of a Progressive rock influence. But Cynic have more of a Jazz Fusion influence. There isn't really a band that's "trully" progressive. That pretty much depends on the listener and his tastes. Dunno if what I'm saying makes much sense. ------------- http://regulab.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:42
|
To be honest, I don't agree with this system. In a way, it "mathematizes" music and, besides that, I don't agree and henceforth never will with judging different styles of music under similar prisms. When you say DT I&W has a rating of 6/8, then I see 10/10 In albums by 70's giants.. then I ask: where is the conecction, but only in the fact that both are listed on this website? Yes... we all understand both things as "progressive". I just don't accept judging the "progressiveness" of some bands (in this case, prog metal bands) with the same standards we use for other ones (say, with the true "prog-rock" movement). I think it's a interesting idea and a great analysis you've made, but one I can't agree with.
Besides that, I will never ever re-ever agree with BLIND GUARDIAN being more progressive than METALLICA, for example. Maybe the system, as somebody says, can work better if EACH individual uses his/her own ideas in giving the ratings for each artist... but ehen, when we have 873469 different answers, the system loses effectivity as a good way to define progressive-rock and all the subgenres.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:53
-------------
|
.. No, really, great idea but I think is as difficult to implement as many others, and maybe more./ Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:55
But according to the chart, Metallica is more progressive than Blind Guardian, but Blind Guardian is more Prog (Progressive Metal). ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:55
|
in the most general way, I agree with this idea. but, i would make revisions.
imo, most prog metal and most prog rock are two different things, neighter being a subset of the other
Music--Pop Music--Metal--Progressive Metal
Music--Pop Music--Rock--Progressive Rock
there is some overflow, but that doesn't influence it much, imo.
the problem is the degree to which something is established as being similar to progressive rock is different than it is to progressive metal. this is a fundamental disagreement i currently have with prog archives. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: LeInsomniac
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 21:54
|
Excellent diagram MikeEnRegalia, it represents exactly how I view prog and thee groups, not one milimeter to the right or less to the left! I just hav an issue with Metallica even being discussed to be here, but hell...Radiohead is here...what can we do against the new hordes of people who think PA has to become a non-prog database? (just trying to see if I'll be attacked by this comment!) P.S: Only two days ago I've started to give a chance to Radiohead (i.e. Kid A) so until now im yet to give a final answerto if i really think if Radiohead should be here. Just wanna learn! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/LeInsomniac/?chartstyle=volta"> 
Happy Family One Hand Clap, Four Went On But None Came Back |
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 23:17
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 25 2008 at 23:44
Well.... that's another problem with such a chart... it leads to confusion...
The ultimate point I'm trying to make is that we first have to define what we understand for both names of each axis. We have to define those two things FIRST, then we could use such a device. But we haven't yet agreed on what the word "progressive" means, so misinterpretations or different interpretations and, hence, different results from the use of this chart may appear. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 26 2008 at 03:21
The chart represents my point of view (or at least a rough draft of it) ... yours can be quite different. That's the whole point ... only the combination of the opinions of a large number of knowledgeable people could have the power to *maybe* become the basis for a commonly accepted guideline. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 26 2008 at 04:29
|
Mike, as much as I admire this conceptual framework I'm not convinced we need an aggregate opinion. It's the principle of the thing that works so compellingly well. I see this as another tool to help understand the various factors that help people assess the 'progness/progressiveness' of a band or album. I think there's far more value in the thousands of individual charts people will carry around in their heads, helping them to make sense of what they think, than in one aggregate chart that no one will totally agree with. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 26 2008 at 15:43
That would be a very interesting experiment. The resulting graphic could be, seeing how people here are, so extremely odd.. It would actually defy the laws of geometry and mathematics...-------------
|
Posted By: chrisk
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 13:56
|
I'm sure that when many of these artists recorded their works they were not intended to be put into nice little descriptive boxes, they were an expression of feeling or creativity. For some of these works the label Prog or Progressive did not exist and were a creation of the music media who like to categorise everthing! I say does it matter? As long as we enjoy it an appreciate the effort that went into its creation and sprend the message to those that have never heard this wonderful style of music, what its called is secondary. ------------- chrisk |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 17:57
|
I applaud the original poster's graphic, and I even agree with it as far as accuracy goes...the caveats that I see don't fault the diagram, but just the futility of the dilemma it tries to solve... To explain, on this site, the most frequent sore spot seems to be when people's definitions of Prog contradict others'. But, I've found that this problem is not unique to this genre, nor is it even exclusive to discussions about music. For example: On the Fender guitar forum, anyone who posts a picture of their beloved 6-string outfitted with a humbucking pickup, is promptly told my purists that the guitar that they have is no longer a Stratocaster, because Stratocasters have single coils only, anything else is perceived as a perversion of Leo Fender's design. On the KVR and recording enthusiast forums, the new Minimoog is said to not be an analog synthesizer, because it can store presets unlike the original, even though every component that produces the sound is analog. Such is the case with any tradition that is altered in any way over time -- in Prog, it's especially complicated because the most literal definition of the genre provided by purists is that no prog music should ever sound like anything that came before it -- so how can fall in love with the "sound" of a genre if it is to nenver be repeated?! An unsolveable puzzle... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: BrianB
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:17
|
Mike, I admire your effort at trying to quantifiy the idea of what constitute's Prog Rock but I doubt that such a thing is possible. As I see it you are essentially using Plato's idea of "forms" where he claims that there is a realm of ideal, perfect properties and that the everyday particulars are defined by the degree of these forms they posses or exhibit. Are you are suggesting that there is an ideal of "prog-rockishness" and then attemptting to decide how much of this "prog-rockishness" is in any particular piece of music. I wish you luck, Plato failed. The other definition option is comparison with an existing piece of music, and trying to decide how similar another piece is. This needs some standard for comparision, i.e. a piece that is self-evidently the quintessential prog rock composition. What is this standard, "CTTE", "Starless & Bible Black", "Tarkus", "Selling England..."? I have no idea. I do howerver like your approach, using a statistical average of the opinions of the ProgArchive forum members to create a map of existing music. This is something that would, I think, proove useful in providing some guide to others seeking new musical experiences and is comendable but I don't think it is something that could be considered a definitive schema of musical style. To me all music is art, some good, some excellent and a lot utterly boring but I can't see how it can be quantified. ------------- "In music the passions enjoy themselves." Friedrich Nietzsche 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 05:00
|
@chrisk: I understand your point, and I even agree with it. What I'm trying to do is to introduce a set of really wide/fuzzy criteria, which aren't all that limiting for the artists. If we simply say "album X is a bit more progressive than album Y", I can't see any harm in that. And while I'm actually listening to the music I rarely think about genres ... I only sit down sometimes after I've listened to an album and assign some tags which I find to be a good match for the music. @jplanet: Quite true. We all have different definitions of those terms (prog, progressive) in our heads. But the point is that we all have them, and most of us are able to, when we hear a piece of music, decide whether the piece of music fits our definitions or not. It's usually an intuitive decision which we can't really explain ... we can name some obvious reasons (time sig changes, epics etc) but in the end we base our decision on the whole piece of music, and our impression of it which is influenced by our experience (other pieces of music we listened to, articles we read on websites or in magazines etc.) and musical education. The point of my idea is: Even if we cannot define those terms properly, we are using them in real life, so why not combine them in such a chart? @BrianB: Very nice point. Like I explained to jplanet above, I do not think that the terms can be defined properly, so I'm not in danger of failing like Plato did since I'm not even trying to define something like the "ideal" prog track. You said: "What is this standard, "CTTE", "Starless & Bible Black", "Tarkus", "Selling England..."? I have no idea." Well, listing those examples shows that you seem to have *some* idea of what the standard could be. I think the key lies in which styles are the "core" prog styles ... for me it's Symphonic Prog first and foremost, and the fact that you chose albums from that style kind of supports this theory. To others it might be Krautrock, or Psychedelic Prog, or Canterbury ... or all of them. To some it might even include Post Rock, a style which I would not include since it came so much later than Prog Rock. Progressive Metal is a really odd phenomenon ... together with Neo Prog I would put it on almost the same level as the classic styles. "To me all music is art, some good, some excellent and a lot utterly boring but I can't see how it can be quantified." My approach is not about quantification. Well, there are levels (5 steps), but they are really fuzzy and not meant to be calculated or expressed numerically ... on my website I use the following words to express them: "Not, Slightly, Moderately, Quite, Very, Extremely". I don't think that I'm being too "numerical" when I say that Yes - Close to the Edge is extremely Prog by Style and Rush - Hemispheres is "only" quite Prog by Style ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 01:08
|
One problem I see is this. If you have your average "Math Rock or Tech Metal" type band that's being suggested to the forum, and it definetely sounds like the other bands in those genres, but doesn't do anything new, or progress, then they would be fairly low on the Y-axis on the graph. However, there's no Math/Tech band that sounds remotely like CTTE, SABB, Tarkus, or SEBTP. However, since they might use the exact same techniques as the other bands in the genre, then they would definetely belong here. The chart would fail to agree. I'm not saying this would be the case for only Math/Tech bands, but it's a potential problem in getting deserving bands in here. Would you accept a band here just because they use complicated time signatures and a few jazz chords but sound like the most brutal band ever. Meshuggah and TesseracT both do that, so a band that sounded like that wouldn't progress anything.
Perhaps you would need a chart for each genre of prog music.
Of course, this just defeats the purpose of having a chart, since part of inclusion is having the band sound like the innovators of prog music.
I'm sorry this post wasn't really planned out. It was a very stream of consciousness type post. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 01:26
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 05:14
Not necessarily. It depends on two things: 1. Are those bands really doing nothing new? Especially when it comes to as you put it "Math Rock or Tech Metal", it sometimes takes a musical degree to be able to determine whether they're actually doing something new ... to many people it's simply "widdlywiddlywiddly".
I think that the kind of progression you're looking for might be an illusion. I appreciate if a band is trying to do something unique, but I don't think that this should be the ultimate goal ... instead, we should look for music which actually makes a statement ... last weekend I listened to Pink Floyd - The Wall again, and it was amazing. If you analyze a song like Comfortably Numb you realize that it's actually a very "typical" piece of music ... it uses established rules of composition, harmony and arrangement. Yet I would call it prog, simply because it so cleverly fits within the concept of the album, with the "Is there anybody in there" lines and everything.
As are my answers. You *could* make a chart for each genre ... that would make the voting for the "style" part easier, since you have a better/more narrow base of reference. But the combined chart should really be seen that way too ... for every band/album the "style" part reflects the similarity to the key bands of the most appropriate prog genre. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 23:50
|
[/QUOTE]
Just so you know, I really really like your graph idea. I'm just pointing out potential problems. I think it's a fantastic idea and it gets several of these guys ->  -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2008 at 08:13
Thanks! Well, I wouldn't call Comfortably Numb a typical prog song either, but I do think that it is prog. On the prog style scale I'd probably give it a 6/10. Again I'd like to emphasize that this is not a numerical thing for me ... 6/10 simply means that it's above 50% ... it's not a text book example for prog, but I would call it prog. 4/10 would mean that it's just below 50%, barely missing the criteria ... here it would be called prog-related. 8/10 means that it's close to the typical prog style (as said above, there are many different styles of prog and thus many different benchmark albums). As far as your second point is concerned: Of course different people will use different benchmarks. For example some would give Opeth - Blackwater Park a 6/10 in the style department, because they think that the music is a valid style of prog metal. Others might give it a 0/10 because they don't think that it's valid. And then there are those people who might even give Dream Theater - Images & Words a 0/10 because they don't accept prog metal as a valid style. What my chart would do is to gather all those opinions, as different they may be ... and this is what I'd like to see, the result of all those combined opinions. The only problem is: How can I get people to vote?  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 12 2008 at 12:38
-------------  |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: September 14 2008 at 19:17
I think that one way to get people to vote would be to introduce two sliders corresponding to the Prog and Progressive scales next to where you put in your review. Not only will it submit your rating and review, but the amount of Progginess/Progression.
Then when you view an album's page on the database, the album would appear on the graph according to the average ratings for each axis.
Another use for this type of graph would be to see if a band belongs in the database. For example, if someone suggested a band that was debatable whether they belonged here or not, each person in the discussion could give a suggested rating for each axis. After a thorough discussion and a significant amount of ratings on the Prog/progressive scale, the ratings could be applied to the graph, and depending on where the band ends up, they are either accepted or declined. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 15 2008 at 02:55
|
^ that's exactly what I'm doing at Progfreak.com ... feel free to try it out.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: September 22 2008 at 08:22
I am headlong into writing my PhD dissertation right now. This diagram could serve as the dissertation proposal for yours. What think ye? Be the first with a PhD a "Prog-ology" (yeah, I really need to go to bed...) |