Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?
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=59403
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 21:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Subject: Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 04:18
|
There are many definitions of "Prog", and none has so far really convinced me ... and most of them are also very long-winded and technical/abstract so that only people with firm knowledge of music theory can comprehend them. So ... how about this: A piece of music is "prog" if it is rooted in any genre of popular music - mostly rock and metal, but also pop and electronica - but significantly exceeds the typical level of complexity and/or artistic intent in ways that are difficult to enumerate or quantified, but are exemplified by the key albums of the first wave of prog music in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So ... any comments? Can you think of any prog bands that doesn't fit this description, or any band that does fit the description but isn't prog? Of course there's a subjective component to this definition ... but that's fully intentional. I don't think that it's possible to define prog with this subjective "can't put my finger on it" aspect. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Replies:
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 04:27
|
I'd say there's more jazz (+ classical, middle eastern) influence and very little metal (which is rock anyway) in the first wave of prog. So I would leave metal out of the definition.
------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 04:27
Hah, nice definition but it need previous knowledge. It can't be used outside the world of proggers.  |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 04:46
|
No need to define prog because the people who made that name up are the critics and not the bands. But if you want to define what proper prog is, it's jazz/classical based rock music. It's not standard rock music. It's rock music played with a jazz/classical approach. This means classical/jazz influenced melodies. This means the bass playing and drumming is busier, the guitarist stands back a bit and contributes equally within a melody, the keyboardist has alot influence with a classical approach and the vocalist uses his voice like an instrument too more so than standard rock music. Not to mention the wind and brass instruments as well. True prog isn't about inventing a style of music, it's just a busy style of music naturally made by musicians with a jazz/classical background and because the music was busy and so much different, exciting, interesting and complex than standard rock, the critics named it progressive rock. Forget the word 'progressive' it was just a name put forward by standard people who listen to standard music. If you just think busy naturally, the clever melodies will come. I don't agree with metal being lumped with great prog music. The prog I know doesn't treat the guitar as the main instrument. It is one of many instruments played equally with minimal riffs and minimal volume. Real prog is meant to have rhodes pianos, Hammond organs, moogs, mellotrons, flutes etc. Real prog is meant to be fun and exciting and it's not purposely set at breaking boundaries and inventing. it's just naturally busy jazz/classical rock with a mild heavy rock feel. The real prog bands had Hendrix, Cream, Beatles, Doors to listen too as well as jazz and classical music. But modern bands have been influenced by bands like van Halen and Metellica who I rate as pretty poor bands. The only prog band I like today are the ones who follow the formula left by the 70s band. As long as the melodies are original then the music is original. Stick with the jazz/classical approach and the prog keyboards. ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 04:47
|
I quite like it, but I think it needs a little more work where you use the term 'almost impossible to define' in a definition.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 05:29
|
^ I wrote that definition down in about 5 minutes ... of course there are many things that I can improve. But even then, the message would stay the same: Ultimately it's a subjective decision ... two pieces of music can be equally complex and/or artistic, but that doesn't mean that both are prog. If for example one is from 1970 and the other is from 1996, I think there are quite a few people who would tend to require more complexity/artistry from the newer piece.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 05:46
 exactly my thougts as well, i often say that Prog is rock with elements from jazz and classical music but also including inspiration from local folk-music like in England manny brittish bands are inspired by there local folk scene and medieval tadisjons bands like Genesis, Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull, Roger Hodgson and the Cantbury Scene and folk artist like Cat Stevens borrow from the Folk-music troubadours, Peter Gabriel, Ian Anderson, Roger Hodgson and the Shulamans are modern troubadours |
PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 05:51
|
Prog (and jazz)'s eastern influences are extremely underrated.
------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:05
Quality prog songs are more about the melody which is thought up even before a note is played. The old prog bands came up with melodies which can be listened many times and still be enjoyed. They are clever melodies and they come from a complex person, but the actual music doesn't have to be technical or overly hard to play because the hardest part has already been done. But the melodies are usually hard to play because people with jazz/classical ideas will like something busy. Technicality belongs to the musician and complexity belongs to the composer, but a musican is nothing without a great composer. A composer doesn't have to be a musician either.
------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:18
there is at least one artist which totally fits the definition but which was rejected by the majority of voters some time ago - the Stranglers. so it appears the definition is not applicable -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:30
As usual, you confuse your personal progpreferences with the "truth". ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:44
I'd say that there is some relation between quality and prog status ... but ultimately some piece of music can be really bad and still be prog. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:47
| What is the "typical level of complexity" and how do you define it? Number of chords in a song? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:47
There are numerous aspects of music that contribute to the prog status ... and of course their importance varies greatly, depending on who you ask. I don't really think that it makes sense to enumerate them in a concise definition of prog. In my definition it's surely covered by the reference to the key bands of the classic prog era ... many of them has eastern influences. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 06:59
I mentioned because the eastern influences are rarely mentioned when there's talk about influences. Everyone mentions jazz and classical which is obviously correct too. It was related to that part of the discussion, not so much that it has to be included when defining of the genre (but I'd rather include that eastern influence on western music than metal). ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 08:21
|
^ I think that metal and pop could be excluded when talking about "Classic Prog", but since the 80s those genres are definitely a part of the big picture.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 08:46
The truth?
 I'm telling you what music was labelled prog. You're following the modern version which is going on a completely opposite and wrong tangent. The real proggers naturally did their thing and it was new. Todays version of prog is about doing something new just to be different but it doesn't even put a shivver down the spine. The only good proggers today are the ones who follow the true prog formula and it will progress naturally because it's quality  ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 08:49
Maybe we should separate Old prog from New prog. 2 completely different styles of music ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 09:17
The problem is that if there's something that's not prog then it's "following formulas".  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 09:31
I don't think that's always the case - take "21st Century Schizoid Man" as a classic example - the melody is a fairly simple rock melody. The jazz influences come in the treatment of the riffs and the addition of the sax. What I'm saying is that the jazz influences are in the approach more than the melodies. There's very little Classical influence in that song too - and the same goes for a fair amount of Genesis, which has a stronger folk root than Classical or jazz - although the jazz approach can't be denied, you did specify melodies. I agree that it's not standard rock music.
I don't think that's the reason it's called progressive rock - I think the reason is probably more like it sounded different to the rock music they were used to. Also, "busier" is not a criteria - Genesis music is not particularly "busy" in many places, "Moon Child" is hardly a "busy" piece, and nor is much Pink Floyd. The music could be exciting and new without being busy. I think that more equal contributions from musicians is a fair general point - although people like Rick Wakeman are obvious exceptions... Varied instrumentation is a good point.
Not at all - it was a name given to the exciting new sounding music emerging from certain clubs (such as UFO, Roundhouse and Marquee) and "scenes" (such as Ladbroke Grove) in London in the late 1960s. Pink Floyd were one of the leading lights of the Progressive / Underground scene in 1966-7. Out of these scenes came most of the bands that would be leading lights in Progressive Rock, and some that would play a large part in the evolution of Heavy Metal. Imagine that all you'd heard was "She Loves You Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" and "Ferry Across the Mersey" - or even "Eight Miles High" - and then you heard "Astronomy Domine" for the first time That would have sounded a bit different to the run of the mill, I'd suspect! Notably, "AD" is a heavy song with riffs, like "Saucerful of Secrets", "Set The Controls for the Heart of The Sun" and "Careful With That Axe, Eugene". These songs seem to be largely responsible for sparking off the Krautrock scene, and with it, heavy metal bands like The Scorpions and UFO.
Isn't "21st Century Schizoid Man" real Prog?  It's certainly heavy metal, as much as Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Spooky Tooth or Steppenwolf were, like the Floyd songs I mentioned.
I'd disagree with "not purposely set at breaking boundaries and inventing" - I rather think that this was one of its raisons d'etre, otherwise why do so much stuff that was so wildly different to standard rock music? Besides, much of ELPs stuff doesn't sound like mildly heavy rock - and even Gentle Giant and Jethro Tull could get pretty heavy.
Those bands are among the heaviest of the time - and don't forget the Yardbirds, the Who and Spooky Tooth. While the Beatles weren't consistently heavy, they did write heavy songs, like the title track on Sgt Pepper and "Helter Skelter".
I don't rate either as "poor" - they both came up with innovations that are still influential to this day - probably more so than the Prog Rock groups. They don't have as much jazz influence as Hendrix, Cream, etc., it's true - but there is still some there (e.g. Kirk Hammett had lessons from Joe Satriani, who was in turn a pupil of the great Lennie Tristano and Bill Evans). This is probably because jazz was less popular by this time - and certainly less innovative. The Progressive Jazz introduced by Stan Kenton and perfected by Tristano was taken to its apex by luminaries such as Sun Ra and Miles, and there wasn't much left to do with it - people got bored of it.
There's no formula. Think about the 1970s Prog bands and try to come up with a formula other than on a purely technical basis that unites what they did - it's very difficult. 1970s Prog is all about the approach - even keyboards are optional. In 1970s Prog, everything is optional - except the norm, which was to be avoided. When it was understood that the general record-buying public wanted more stability and less invention in their music, the great Proggers either dumbed it all down to keep the cash coming in, or carried on in this inventiveness and sank to wider obscurity. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 09:45
|
I think in a nutshell, it is modern music that is taken to the very extreme edges of the imagination. ------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 10:10
|
I think that is a very good definition. My definition is probably... Classical music with rock instrumentation. Yours is longer, but mine sums it up in a nutshell. ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 10:18
|
^ what about Psych/Space and Avant-Garde? There are many prog bands that don't have a lot to do with classical music.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 13:22
|
The range of artists who fall under the prog banner, be they the classics from the 70's or the modern bands have such a huge range of influences that it is almost impossible to define properly or succinctly. There are classical, jazz, folk, blues, metal influences in a variety of bands, and others are almost impossible to state what influences made them compose the music they did. So, I will add my ten pounds to the debate by giving an extremely succinct definition, which probably won't help anyone at all: IT'S BLOODY GREAT MUSIC   ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 13:45
|
Forgive me if I haven't read the whole thread to this point yet (not going to have time today!), but, while I agree you have to incorporate the styles of classical and jazz as underpinnings, I don't see enough use of the word blues in the responses (except notable Lazland just above me - I like the R Buckminster Fuller avatar). American blues was a huge preoccupation and influence, probably thanks to it's dissemination on vinyl, influence on the great young musicians of the late sixties-early seventies who made a superlative music which did not all sound the same but came to be labelled Progressive Rock by others.
-------------  Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 14:03
Imagine that, a defining Prog thread. I don't think we've ever done this. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 15:33
Oh yes, that's what you said about prog back then: "Its all about clever melodies and memorable tunes" Complete bullsh*t! Just because you and your friends only accepted singalong progsongs that stuck to some "true prog" formula, doesn't mean anyone else ever agreed with you. And what the f**k did I write that follows "the modern" version? Is that the impression you get if actually read my posts? Is the modern version any version disagreeing with your own? ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 09 2009 at 19:26
I was too young to be part of the prog era, but growing up I hardly liked any rock music until I found old style prog. That's because prog was a step above standard rock music. I was lucky enough my dad had a Rhodes, Hammond and Moog in the lounge room so I was brought up listening to fusion and jimmy smith jazz on the organ. If modern style prog was good I'd be listening to it. But the only prog I like being made today is the prog which follows the old formula ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 03:08
|
Prog is a monster that got loose sometime in the late 60s and by the time anyone realized what had happened, a resilient, ever-mutating creature was unleashed.. fortunately |
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 13:13
We are all so fortunate to have the premier authority on what is "good" prog music here with us in the forum. So, it is your tastes that decide what is good music and not our own? I don't think so. Much of today's music that is categorized on this site as prog is easily as innovative, interesting, and GOOD as anything done by the 70's prog bands. You keep mentioning a "formula" that those bands used, when in fact there is no such thing. Those bands were, for the most part, quite different from each other and you'd be hard pressed to come up with a formula that encompassed them all. However, if the formula you are referring to is that of making every effort to be new, unique, and different from other bands and types of rock music, then I suppose I could agree with you. But if that's the case, there is loads of very good prog being made today, whether you listen to it or not. |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 19:49
The formula is playing rock music in a jazz/classical format. You can forget all forms of metal pretty much. The music isn't in the same class. You can be as talented at playing an instrument as you want but you gotta come up with something great before even playing a note first  . Here's some good modern prog. http://www.myspace.com/pointgrafenberg - http://www.myspace.com/pointgrafenberg the first song Kar 120c is cool stuff. Way more interesting than boring bands like tool, porcupine tree, opeth  ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 06:05
|
^ The YouTube down the page of Sarkozy getting pied might be better. Seriously, I'll have to give some additional listens to this stuff. Thanks for the interesting link.
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 06:31
Thats actually rather good. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 06:33
There's a circle argument ("begging the question" / petitio principii / Zirkelschluss) in your definition: you're exemplifying "prog" by "prog albums" (see the words in red)
|
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 07:44
It is and i haven't heard bands such as Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars volta etc produce anything as good as this. Grafenberg is following the right formula imo. ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 07:46
Well I would say they are following the "right formula" for that type of music. You can't compare it to Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars Volta etc ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 08:01
I think much of this has to do with how those eastern influences are employed.
Instrumentation: Simple enough - using eastern instruments to augment the "classical" rock band line-up. The problem of resolving the eastern tunings determines how well that fusion works. One example would be The Beatles' Norwegian Wood - is this eastern influenced or a just a sitar playing western music?
Rhythms: Obvioulsy rhythms are the easiest to adapt and the use of non-standard time signatures in Progressive Rock is well documented - whether specific eastern rhythms are an integral influence or a by-product of that "experimentation" is another question.
Scales & Tunings: Traditional Eastern and Western musical scales are not strictly compatible, eastern influence is an adaption or approximation into a western even tempered system to make it sound eastern. The use of modes and non-standard scales produce an eastern sound that is not necessarily eastern in origin - again, to cite The Beatles - Within You Without You is written in the Mixolydian scale - a western scale that sounds eastern. ------------- What? |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 08:26
The right formula for prog music
I love prog, but I honestly listen to Porcupine tree and think this is not in the same league as old style. The songs just don't come close imo. We need more modern prog like grafenberg who are continuing where prog stopped in the very early 80s. ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 08:58
|
^ I'd like to see more of that too... And Dean, you bring up Mixolydian mode. I've been thinking lately how prevalent that mode is in rock, all styles; in probably the majority of cases it's due to the fact that it's pretty close to the blues scale (just add the "blue" note), in other cases (and much of prog that uses it) it is absolutely due to eastern influences. Let's not forget how modal English song was too. ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 10:29
I dislike the majority of modern prog. But there's a thing I dislike even more, modern bands trying to play old-fashioned prog. (of course there are exceptions to both) I guess it's because of the zeitgeist. I don't think they were thinking "oh, we're a prog band, hence, we play prog, therefore we must play prog" in 70s, and that's what makes the music so good. They weren't hesitating to play boogie, folk, soul or blues in their music, among other things. There's more to be said but I'll wait until debate gets more heated  |
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 10:31
|
Weird music |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:03
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:57
It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 13:08
Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivŕn/Keith makes no sense. If you were right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work. (Sorry, just sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.) Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivŕn used it to describe how he feels about the definition as compared to others. There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account clarity, practicality and simplicity. "Elegance." To Ivŕn - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right direction for sure. If there's any problem it's that it defines some other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly, with respect to riffs). But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog musicians. AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if that's possible). ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 13:18
Jkes appart, this definition clearly expresses what some of us believe.
Prog Rock doesn't necesarilly need to evolve, the progression is in the musical approach, in the complexity, elaboration and imagination.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 16:15
It's Prog in a nutshell, if you take it as read that we're talking about "Rock" music (to avoid confusion with Classical composers and Jazzers!).
Where did this quote come from?
I'd like to include it in the Wikipedia definition - but I need a more definitive link than a forum post, even if it is from a Senior ProgArchives Collaborator.
It's worth noting here that ProgArchives carries real weight as a source of reliable information among many Prog writers and editors on Wikipedia - and support for this site seems to be growing.
The one flaw I see in this definition is that it works fine for 1970s Prog, but puts a lot of modern Prog into dispute - maybe modern Prog requires a definition of its own, like Prog Metal does, to avoid confusion, because it simply doesn't have this approach, as a general rule.
This doesn't mean Modern Prog isn't as good, simply that it's fundamentally different music, and should be appreciated as such ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 18:00
I don't like when a new band sounds like an old band, but I like when a new band sounds like it belonged in the 70s and their ideas sound completely original ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: DamoXt7942
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 21:06
 On the definition of "progressive rock" we have to pick and gather lots of musical essence up I think. As Dean has said, progressive rock should get the much influence of eastern music, and I can say as an eastern people, that the eastern music after the end of War might try to get much closer to the western one. Musical culture itself is complex and always interactive with another scene, IMHO.  ------------- http://www.facebook.com/damoxt7942" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: yesman1972
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 00:18
I posted this in another thread; it seems like it might be relevant.
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 00:25
 I was kidding, didn't you see the smileys? Ugh, sometimes I'm not sure if they're useful or not... |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 01:11
|
I agree with both Ivan and Cert1fied, it is indeed the best defintion of prog rock I have come across, simple, clear and precise. But coming from a 70s prog rock artist, obviously referring to THAT style of prog rather than the modern way. crimson87 must be delighted to see some praise for his favourite axeman on PA for a change.
|
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:31
Tool are about 10% prog. There's no jazz influences in the drums, no wind instruments, no classical melodies, no classical keys, no folk influences, no fun or excitemnt in their melodies, no staying power. They have no vocalist with character or someone who will use their voice as an instrument or sing with melody. The only prog element is a bit of time signature, but they are just a plain modern grungy alternative metal band with repetive, blande songs which all sound almost the same. Same goes for Opeth apart from Damnation which is a nice bunch of slow tunes. Window Payne is by far their best song. Porcupine tree are just as bland. A big yawn from me. I love real prog, it's so much better ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:54
Still want to hold on though to the point of elegance in a definition. Liking where this is going. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 11:44
This definition leaves out half of the classic prog albums ... but other than that it's fine. IMO developing musical ideas as an important aspect of prog, but not the only one. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 13:25
With a name like Mr. Progfreak I'm willing to bet you know what you're talking about, but we're going to need some examples here, and to know which part of the (Emerson) defintion they violate. I'm curious if examples will end up falling more into other categories (like a lot of Space Rock for example) which are here in PA probably more because they are enjoyed by progheads than because they are themselves Prog (again, whatever that means!). To cut off a certain argument before it's made, let's not get confused by musics that progress in part by means of repetition. The classical Sonata form depended very much on this, and even more baldly did the Rondo with concern to a "riff." ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 13:46
|
I will not list examples here ... every time specific albums or tracks are mentioned people tend to get lost in specifics. I simply don't think that Prog is music that is - or even tries to be - on the sample level as Classical music. Some albums came close ... and maybe those are indeed the pinnacle of Prog. But seriously ... listen to Genesis - The Musical Box and tell me that this idea of organically developing motifs is all that Prog is about. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 14:02
I see where are you getting at...If you give me a few names that would be much appreciated!! |
Posted By: yesman1972
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 15:17
|
Progmonster 2008, your response was excellent. You have proven my point beautifully. Because Tool doesn't use certain instruments, or because their singer doesn't do this or that, etc. they are not true prog. The truth is, they, as well as Porcupine Tree, Opeth, The Flower Kings, Glass Hammer, whoever else, can't truly be prog rock. Nowadays, people simply call prog bands such only if they sound sould like they are clearly derivitive of the music that came out in the early 70s. My favorite music is the music from the 60s and the 70s, but I am just pointing out how prog can't really be anything but a quality at present. That's how it began; early 70s prog was actually progressive. You say Tool aren't prog because they don't use classical melodies. Since when does the quotation of classical melodies constitute prog? I know that early prog bands used classical melodies, but that wasn't truly the prog era we talk about. If you have to quote classical melodies to be prog, Close to the Edge isn't prog. There are also no wind instruments on Close to the Edge, so I suppose that would be strike two. I'm not sure what you mean by classical keys. Do you mean classical-style playing or do you mean the key instruments that were in existance during the classical period? Either way, almost every band in existence has used a piano. There could very well be folk influence in the music of Tool. Lipan Conjuring is some kind of Native Americanesque chant. Saying that their music has no staying power or excitement is more of a personal opinion. I personally love how they explore their riffs to the fullest in songs like Third Eye, Lateralus, Forty-six and Two, Vicarious, and Jambi. Danny Carey is actually highly influenced by jazz drumming. He uses a lot of jazz inspired ideas in his playing. And the similarity between their songs is not much different than the similarities between songs from almost every era of King Crimson. King Crimson has about five songs that are basically Epitaph. Their first two albums are almost the same album. Every album from 80's King Crimson uses a five note repeating pattern in the guitars over a 4/4 rhythm. This does not, however, keep me from loving King Crimson. |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 16:27
|
Let's all take a breath. We all know what we like and like what we know. There are definitely problems in Progmonster's definition, and there are problems with Emerson's too. We should always bare in mind what you all already know: Prog was a label picked up on and applied to something that was happening or had already happened. Once you make such a label, nothing will again be innocently of that essence before it was defined. Progfreak. Great points (and things are already devolving by means of specifics in here - appreciate the effort to steer clear). People don't often enough consider the incredible brevity of a period. Take what you might call the true Classical music period, it lasted roughly from about 1750 (the development and application of the sonata form, and the roughly-coinciding establishment of good keyboards and temperament) to about 1804 (the Waldstein, the Eroica, revolutions). But what's this?, the period had flourishing Baroque composers. And later, writing in the 18-teens, no less than E.T.A. Hoffman called Haydn and Mozart the first "Romantic" composers. You know, this all makes me wonder how far someone would get in a definition of Classical music (!!), even just sound-wise. I mean, you say "Classical music" to someone and they'll think, "yeah, I know what that is." But what if next you said "define it," even to the most ardent listener? I do not say this in the spirit of "whatever" and abandoning inquiry, I just think it's a challenging question. Because even if you admit to the difficulty, it would really seem as if there IS a rough and moving definition of it, and that there appears to be one of the word Prog moving around somewhere in here. We are, to borrow a phrase from Itzhak Bentov, stalking a wild pendulum. The problem probably lies in the yen to define things in the first place. But that's okay, because as concious beings, as "mobile intelligent units," we naturally seek to know ourselves, with all the blunders that entails. ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 19:54
I go through all of Tools songs and none of them have that excitement. They all sound almost identical. I can't believe how many of their songs sound like the same song lol. They all have the same guitar patterns and the same chorus and that horrible Maynard modern scream. How can a band not want to have a Hammond organ or Rhodes piano or a moog or mellotron or clavinet? I just don't rate the band. They hardly have a song which I can hear excitement from the first listen and the songs just don't impove after another listen or two. CTTE has enough jazz and classical ideas. Bruford is a jazz based drumming and Wakeman a classical based keyboardist. Wind instruments aren't vital though but they are a nice addition. Prog is supposed to be full of fun exciting melodies and unpredictable ideas. A fusion of jazz/rock and classical music. Tool are very average to my prog ears  ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: yesman1972
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 23:09
| I understand what you're saying. I agree that compared to other more progressive bands Tool is pretty boring and repetitive; but as far as defining prog, I just think it's hard to have certain standards that have to be met all of the time, because a lot of classic prog bands have music that doesn't fit all of the criteria. When I hear the rich and breathtaking music of Yes, Genesis, Camel, Gentle Giant, Van Der Graaf Generator, King Crimson, etc., I can't help but feel that no music since then should be put in the same category. Times have changed, and I don't think that the music atmosphere in the world is sufficient for allowing rock musicians to be as creative and different. To me, prog is a quality in modern music. No music can truly be prog rock. It's like calling new rock that sounds like Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, AC/DC, etc., classic rock. Even though it sounds like classic rock, it's from a different time. It can never hope to truly be equal to its influences. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 03:17
Developing musical ideas are pretty much fundamental to classic prog. Saying that this definition leaves out "half of the classic prog albums" is not only a straw man argument, but I'm not sure how much truth there is in it. Every example I can think of, from the top of my head, does have this to some extent of another. The Nice's "Ars Vita Longa Brevis" is pretty much based on this principle - as we might expect from the originator of this quote. The principle is clearly at work in all The Nice's albums, and ELPs too. Genesis follow this principle clearly on Trespass through The Lamb - and it's interesting that many people say Geneses were less proggy after the Lamb, because the music stops following this principle so closely from Trick of the Tail, and is at it's least interesting (from a developmental point of view) after Duke. Indeed, Duke is largely based on repeating patterns, hence does not fit this description well - and you'll see this reflected in the reviews. Personally, I think Duke is a great album - but I would not disagree that it is less proggy than earlier Genesis albums, and it is probably this core idea that Emerson puts forward which explains it best. Let's look at other Prog bands; King Crimson - Emerson's quote clearly applies. Gentle Giant - again, no problems here. Gong - absolutely. Pink Floyd - Check, but Floyd do tend to go for the repetitive element more. Not a real problem, as Emerson's principle still applies to a lot of Floyd's music - we don't need a percentage figure, just a finger in the air is sufficient to tell us that there are albums on which this happens more often than not - such as Ummagumma. Yes - Yes also tended to be weaker in this area, but then they are one of the few Prog bands that started out including covers on their albums. Nevertheless, you can hear the developing principle at work - especially in some of the more elaborate structures. Jethro Tull - tended towards folk-oriented songs, but, like "genuine" folk, became very intricate and frequently developed the music. "Thick as a Brick" is all you need to know. Frank Zappa... no comment necessary! Hawkwind - now we're at the "simpler" end of the spectrum. Hawkwind were only too happy to settle into repetitive riffs, but they're never up for dispute as a Prog band - although most people would happily agree that Space Rock is a better categorisation for them. Camel - more groove than development, but the latter is not missed out completely. I have often seen references to Camel as a "Division 2" Prog band, and I'd be tempted to agree - although they are one of my personal favourites. This kind of proves Emerson's principle really - the less a band adheres to it, the more likely people are to agree that they are not as "Prog" as a band that does (although I would be among the last to dispute Hawkwind!). Without exception, the core bands prove this pinciple, and most of them do it rather well - I can't think of a single classic prog album that doesn't - let alone half of them! ...but, to rewind a little, which are the Classic Prog albums? I chose from the top 10 albums on this site, and added a few of my own (arguably selective) choosing. Maybe my assumptions are wrong - maybe these aren't classics or I've left important ones out? Specifics are needed to justify this claim, otherwise we're blindly accepting something on a vague suggestion.
Like Prog, "Classical" has two core meanings; 1. A reasonably definite musical style that renowned composers wrote in during the late 18th century. Again, specifics are required to flesh this out - but it isn't hard. Compare " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKhH2hRa-WQ - Eine Kleine Nachtmusik " (Classical) with http://rachmaninoff%20piano%20concerto%202 - Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto (Romantic). 2. Any orchestral music (using the word "orchestra" roughly here, as it can include piano, solo vocal and a number of other arrangements) written with the clear goal of being something other than pop music. Even academics use it in this sense, despite being aware that this usage is "incorrect". So Prog has two core meanings; 1. As defined by Emerson above. 2. To mean rock music that is somehow perceived to be progressive and/or different to "standard" rock music. That latter definition is pretty awful - but I think it's a reasonable summary. Most people would flesh out both with technical explanations - e.g. odd time signatures, long songs, concepts, etc - but I'm not going there on this occasion... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 03:41
|
@ Mark: I haven't time to think this through at the moment, but early prog developed in parallel with what is now (or then?) called Baroque Pop/Rock - this came after immediately Psyche-Pop but kept the simpler pop song structures (all be it with embellishment, segues and "chamber music" interludes and with non-Pop lyrical themes) ... it could be argued that bands like Curved Air were closer to Baroque Rock than Prog Rock (not just the Vivaldi influence ). What differentiates Baroque Rock from Prog Rock is "complexity" - but this is as blurred today as it was in the late 60s with bands like The Decemberists straddling both subgenres. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 03:51
|
I don't have the time to write a lengthy response ... but I simply think that developing riffs is one of the more important aspects of prog, but not the most important, and certainly not one that you can reduce prog to. In your enumeration you already state that maybe Space Rock isn't prog ... or that Hawkwind are on the "simpler end of the spectrum". Ok, if you focus primarily on Symphonic Prog then Emerson's definition has a point - that aspect is present in all of Symphonic Prog. But if you include all the sub genres listed here, other aspects come into play as well. In those cases you basically have two choices: Leave them out and say that they're not really prog, or expand your criteria. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 04:49
I never liked the term prog anyway. But I think the only way a song is progressing is if the song is cool on first listen and just gets better with more listens and it never really gets boring. The old prog bands wrote really clever melodies with explosive jazz ideas and nice classical pieces. I believe this is the right formula. I don't believe in inventing or experimenting. It has to be exciting or nice and that comes in the composition/melodies. I honestly believe certain people(including myself) just don't get enough from standard rock music and being brought up with jazz/classical music and a small portion of quality rock music, they will naturally produce interesting rock music. This happened around 1968 or 69, but I don't believe these musicians just decided to invent something different. They just naturally wrote busy rock music because that's what met their standards. But many modern bands labelled prog are trying to invent styles of music such as new styles of metal. It doesn't seem natural because they are taking the word 'progressive' literally. But I believe prog is just busy jazz/classical rock with exciting melodies. It's not metal and not guitar/riff based music. It involves alot of thought into the melody. It's sometihng you can humm and keep in your head ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 06:25
| It seems to me that defining prog will never be "simple", as the title of this thread said, and it will always be that way. Prog means progressive, and it seems that it was originally used to define music that had progressed beyond the common boundaries and was also integrating elements of rock, jazz, folk, etc. It should also be mentioned that progressive music was geared more to be listened thant to be danced to, which marks one of the great differences between prog and popular, more commercial music. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 06:42
|
^ well, in the title I only asked if it could be that simple ... and the definition that I came up with is not complete. It does not list the criteria required for something to be prog. For Emerson it can be the development of riffs or motifs, others may focus on other elements or approaches that their favorite prog artists used, but their non-prog peer didn't. It is exactly this diversity of criteria which makes prog both hard to define and so rewarding as you explore all the different styles. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 07:02
Indeed - there were and still are lots of different "genres" or, more accurately, labels to put on different flavours of rock and pop music, and nearly all blur into each other.
I'm not particularly familiar with Curved Air - I didn't really get tempted in by what little I heard of them - but the fact you've used a different term, "Baroque Rock" differentiates it enough from Prog to retain the validity in Emerson's statement, just as people tend to classify bands like Roxy Music or Bowie as Art Rock, etc.
/edit: OK - now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6OFTZCRAY - this is just freakin' awesome !
I am not sufficiently convinced of Baroque Rock's existence to explore it as a genre - the name appears to come from pop/rock bands who used harpsichords rather than any actual Vivaldi influence, such as the cycle of fifths or suspended cadences. I would acknowledge Yngwie Malmsteen's music as Baroque metal, however...
Come to think of it, there's a fair bit of Baroque influence (as well as a very strong jazz undercurrent) in the music of http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=4512 - Clouds - including harpsichords (in "I Am The Melody" - streamed at the link given). Were they the first Baroque Prog group, perhaps?
I'm still trying to think of a good example of "Classic Prog" that is simply an unmodified song.
It's interesting how many times the references to "Jazz influences" comes up in other comments here, because the "Emerson Principle" applies very strongly to jazz, of course.
It's also interesting that there are examples of non-Prog songs on Prog albums - reviews not just on this site but everywhere seem to back this up strongly; Songs like "More Fool Me" don't detract from a Prog albums progginess, but are frequently noted for their relative weakness.
/edit 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5BrYAbsONo&feature=related - Emerson confirms his Spinal Tap links ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Johnny_Tsunami
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 15:24
|
Although the question 'what is prog' is very intriguing, and the answers even more intriguing, I'm afraid there will never really be a definition. These topics are always fun to read but I'm afraid they only further complicate the idea of what progressive music is. Nobody is going to be completely satisfied with an "all-encompassing" definition of progressive music unless its their own. So although these topics are fun, I think the attempts to give progressive music an all-encompassing definition will always be in vain and confuse people more about what progressive really is. Because when I think of progressive music, I don't think of music with clear classical/jazz influence. I mean I'm sure there is a lot of progressive that is influenced by jazz and classical, but you could have a band that is unfamiliar with both of those and still be progressive. The same holds true (for me) with the "busier" concept. After thinking about it for a second, it makes more sense in my opinion to categorize the artists as progressive instead of the music they create. So my definition would be any artist that trys to combine elements of certain types of music in an effort to create their own unique sound. As an add-on I would also say that they are continually evolving throughout their careers as they embrace more and different types of music. So I guess that's my own definition, I hope it makes sense and helps you all in realizing your own personal definition of this enigmatic music! ------------- I likes musics |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 17:58
|
Sorry, but definitions cannot be personal - instead that's good ol' opinion, which we are all about and entitled to. Let me add, for Certif1ed, kudos for living in the true spirit of inquiry. ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 00:27
Emerson's definition doesn't specify what level of development is needed to qualify. I read your lengthy list of examples ... and yes, if you lower the bar that much then the definition really includes most classic prog albums. It also includes Queen, Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s albums that aren't prog.
I still prefer my definition, since it resides between those two extremes. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 00:30
|
Not a bad definition, but not too great. Honestly, it is better to just "know" what prog is. It is so difficult to define ANY genre, even metal. Must experience it yourself |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 01:35
You were saying earlier that my definiton raises the bar too high - which is it? How, specifically, do my examples "lower the bar"? I chose the bands which I think represent Prog Rock simply by looking at the top 10 here, my own gut feeling, and Bill Bailey's top 10 Prog bands. I don't think that Gentle Giant, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, ELP, King Crimson and Gong - or even Camel and Hawkwind are "lowering the bar", do you? These are widely held to be Prog bands - and their music certainly fits what I think of as Prog.
*Newsflash*: Some Queen albums are Prog. Shocking, but true! We had several discussions on this topic a few years ago when they were added to the archives, I seem to remember. Listen to Queen II and tell me that's not a Prog album. Emerson's definition is non-specific, to be sure, and, as I pointed out earlier, "genres" blur into each other a lot - you just can't be completely specific, especially when you put things into a nutshell, as he has so succinctly. However, I don't see how Emerson's principle, as I prefer to call it, describes Led Zeppelin! It's not really a definition, simply because of its non-specificity, it's more of a description of the approach and execution of Prog - a principle which descibes the commonality that binds the huge range of different music that falls under the Prog umbrella together. If it implies that Led Zeppelin (or any other band) are related to Prog, then the more the merrier!
Metal's much easier to define - if it hasn't got uber-distorted guitars and regular riffing, it's not metal. Metal is the darker side of refined rock, with a harder edge. Besides, who can honestly way they just "know" what Prog is - there's always someone that will disagree, so who's right? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 01:52
If you interpret the term "development" from the standpoint of classical music then IMO that means raising the bar too high for most prog albums except for a small "elite". On the other hand you can of course lower the bar by not taking "development" too literal/formal. Then most prog bands fit the description, but also many albums that were not considered to be prog back then. You mentioned Space Rock yourself ... so is the typical space rock album prog or not, by Emerson's definition?
According to this website Queen aren't prog, and neither are Metallica. You're welcome to your point of view, but IMO it's historically incorrect to call them (or some of their albums) "Prog" without some further hints/explanations.
Well, maybe Prog can't easily be put in a nutshell. I'm simply saying that while he has a point, there are other aspects that can make music fall under the prog umbrella. Enumerating these aspects is the hard part ... and it depends on whether you're an inclusionist/exclusionist, whether you embrace modern styles, avant-garde, jazz etc.. Let's keep in mind that "Prog Rock" is a term that was never properly defined in the first place ... people started using it for some bands, and then more and more bands that each person who used the term thought to be compatible. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 05:59
Ah - you made an assumption. Development in classical music is something entirely different - it is a specific movement in a piece written in Sonata form, coming between the exposition and recapitulation of the main material. Its function is similar - to develop previously presented music, but I use the term loosely - there is no point using strict classical definitions when talking about rock music. The sense I use the term in is self-explanatory - presented music is developed - ie, it does not remain the same. You could use the more explicit term "Progresses" if you like - hence Progressive Rock fits perfectly, when Emerson's principle is applied. I don't know what the typical Space Rock album is - Hawkwind are widely credited with inventing the genre, and "owning" it for many years - although there is a lot of similarity in many Krautrock bands - who, of course, also come loosely under the "Prog" umbrella, but most would recognise that Kraut is something different to Classic Prog. Interestingly, Heavy Metal owes a lot of its development to Krautrock. Instead of throwing straw man arguments into the mix, could you be more specific about "many albums that were not considered to be prog back then", because in context, this is meaningless.
No, it isn't. There is a whole thread on Metallica, and there have been many on Queen - let's not bring potentially controversial discussions into this thread. My review goes some way to explaining why this is so - and many other reviews note the high Prog quotient in Queen, so it's not just me. This site is the best, but doesn't always get it right - and anyway, Queen and Metallica are both listed as Prog related - they are both clearly recognised as having a relation to Prog, even if the full extent is not widely recognised.
Maybe it can't - but I think it goes a long way, and gets at the essence of most Prog. This is why I describe it as a principle rather than a definition - it accurately describes the general approach that Proggers took - and is clearly not intended to be specific. You could see it as a sliding scale, so that obviously complex prog bands like Gentle Giant clearly belong at the top (most proggy, not necessarily best), and simpler bands like Hawkwind belong at the bottom of this scale - which reflects nicely the fact that they're more often considered as "Space Rock" than "Prog", but doesn't discount their inclusion in the grand pantheon. Indeed. Bill Bailey includes them in his top 10! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwu8d2NVEcc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwu8d2NVEcc You still haven't provided any specific examples of where this principle does not apply in Classic Prog. You said "half". Should be a piece of cake
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 06:22
|
^ I guess in the end our positions are similar, and most of our "conflicts" are due to misunderstandings. As far as seeing prog status as a "sliding scale" ... that's all I've ever been doing at Progfreak.com. Unfortunately many knowledgable PA members are not participating ... ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 07:15
|
^ Participation. (Off-topic.) When I click your link it looks impressive, but I have a sense of not knowing where to start, and that it could take longer than I have to figure it out. Pls don't flame me, this may be the reaction of many people. Would you kindly post some links on where to start there and what it is you're after? Thanks! (Not saying I'm a "knowledgeable PA member" or anything...)
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 07:20
|
^ It's really very simple. The key is that you first have to create an account and log in. Then all you have to do is to click the buttons/dropdown that are shown next to the album names. :-) ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:07
|
I've bumped this thread because it's given me food for thought, and I'd like to offer an alternative definition which approaches the subject from a different angle. How about: "Progressive music is sound produced by artists following their own conception of music in the hope of attracting public attention, without, or with only secondary consideration of monetary gain in the process." |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:58
|
^ I think that's an aspect that's present in most prog, but also in a variety of other styles of music. So while I think that the definition includes most prog, it also includes many non-prog albums, especially from the new alternative/independent genres.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 04:43
|
Hm, true.
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
I'll get back to you. This is interesting.
I could chuck in a part about influences, but that would be as near to your definition as damnit and I was getting quite fond of my own angle.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 05:27
|
^ like I said, it's an important aspect. My definition is deliberately vague in describing those aspects, so the next step would be to list the most important ones: - Musical Development - Innovation, Experimentation, Avant-Garde - A tendency to avoid and/or ignore mainstream/commerciality (that would be your definition) - References to classical music and/or jazz - More focus towards musical prowess (extended solos, parts that are "needlessly" - from a non-prog standpoint - difficult/complex) That should cover most styles ... the problem is that many albums might satisfy one or even several of those aspects but we still wouldn't call them Prog. Queen are an obvious example. Looking at the music alone I would call some of their albums Prog (and Certif1ed agrees), but most others wouldn't ... I suppose this is because most people don't judge music by a list of criteria/aspects, but rather intuitively by comparing it to the memory they have of music they would call Prog. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: joelossia
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 06:40
| Check out this: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Write_a_Progressive_Rock_Song - http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Write_a_Progressive_Rock_Song Some things are hilarious but there's a bit in it somewhere about how it uses wierd 'tempos' and not Time Signatures! |
Posted By: Johnny_Tsunami
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 08:19
|
^Hahaha, wow that is an awesome tutorial! ------------- I likes musics |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 19:14
lol. They have porcupine tree in there. There would be 1000's of prog related bands to mention before them ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 19:30
| Uncyclopedia's page on http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Mars_Volta - The Mars Volta is impressive. |
Posted By: Valdez
Date Posted: July 17 2009 at 22:05
|
Is it true that the last thing progressive rock fans want is for their music to actually be progressive? ------------- https://bakullama1.bandcamp.com/album/sleepers-2024 |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 17 2009 at 22:44
A true progger never even thinks about the word. They just naturally produce smart music ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: July 17 2009 at 23:59
Multiple tempi are fair game, do you think most 20 minute epics are the same tempo all the way through?
Hmm, like Tool and Mars Volta and Between the Buried and me, among other post 1989 artists? ------------- 
|
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 18 2009 at 01:23
nah, those bands write boring metal
I want jazz rock ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: Geizao
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 13:23
|
The simple is, progressive music is not simple. "Tales From Topographic Ocean" of Yes.....
It wasn't a simple thing. "Saucerful Of Secrets" of Pink Floyd did the same thing. A beyond
sound of music. No name for it. Progressive is just a representative word.
|
Posted By: Lodij van der Graaf
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 00:06
|
The 'progressive rock' is as simple as eggs is eggs... ------------- Grace is a name, like Chastity, like Lucifer, like mine!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 03:09
Thanks for sharing FUN FUN FUN
"As anyone who knows anything about anything will tell you, /wiki/Americans - Americans can't make /wiki/Prog_Rock - Prog Rock . With the exception of Images and Words and Metropolis Pt. 2 by /wiki/Dream_Theater - Dream Theater , everything to ever come out of the American Prog scene is total /wiki/sh*t - sh*t ."When discussing /wiki/Prog_Rock - Prog Rock , it is good to reference bands other than /wiki/Pink_Floyd - Pink Floyd and /wiki/King_Crimson - King Crimson occasionally, if you mention Genesis make sure not to mention Phill "the midget" Collins
Not to mention this one from the Krimson bio:
To this day, overzealous drummers in band rehearsals worldwide are all too familiar with the shameful calls of "Keep it simple, stupid! Play four to the floor, like Crimso."
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 06:23
There is more than a grain of truth in this statement (in fact a chaff going on a field) We do like our self fulfilling prophecies on 'PA' and it seems self evident that genuinely innovative forms of rock which do not carry any surface resemblances or reference points traceable back to the 'great and the good' from the halcyon days of the early 70's are going to attract charges of : "That ain't prog bro !" (with barely concealed contempt to boot). It strikes me as borderline arrogance for a caveman to deny the existence of baseball just because they're not using his club. Defining prog has been attempted on these forums previously and given that provocation is inseparable from 'thought provoking' I would temper caution in this laudable but misguided endeavour. If a neurosurgeon (or similar) produced empirical sensory data explainly precisely why I always cry on hearing The Long and Winding Road by the Beatles, I would never listen to music again. Take away the wonder, the awe, the mystery and exaltation of art at your peril.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Real Paradox
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 06:52
|
I know that this might sound a bit uncharacteristically simple to the majority of people posting in this thread, but I have to say, in my humble opinion, that progressive music should be defined by what its name. Progress. Just take a genre, ANY genre, and then try and make things that you should not usually do in it, that's the reason why I think that the line that separates Avant-garde and progressive music is thinner than it looks. What do you think of this?
------------- What is This? It is what keeps us going... |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 17:48
There is some merit in this but stop to think about what you're saying here i.e. another self-fulfilling prophecy. (You are devising a question based on the answer) Perhaps the major hurdle in defining 'Progressive Rock' is that we end up in a quandary trying to justify exclusion from our classification those artists who do not display the reference points we apply from the early 70's. Prog does not have a monopoly on subverting and eschewing the accepted norms of any given genre i.e. practically every so-called 'new school' in jazz and classical have been viewed with abject horror and derision by the prevailing status quo. Valdez put it best (and rhetorically): Is it true that the last thing progressive rock fans want is for their music to actually be progressive? -------------
|
Posted By: Real Paradox
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 18:09
|
Perhaps that's the reason why Fripp showed some disagreement regarding this style. However, there's still something that bothers me... may it be completely or not realized, art itself is, subjectively, not able to progress, is it? The only thing I'm 100% sure about is that we're talking about art. Sorry if I'm getting a bit philosophical here, but it seems there is no other way but to recur to this discipline to try to figure out this. Speaking as an artist. if you try to draw in as many elements as you want, but you end up in a creative loop, that means you're set on something really big and you want to boldly make your statements "someone important in this world", using what you have, but you may be regarded as pretentious and breaming with self-indulgence. If we take it from this point of view, we might draw the conclusion that the "progressiveness" comes from the subject's creative aspirations. That is one of many theories. Another one could be the theory of the ones who try to understand the art. In other words that "progress" can be achieved by the global outcome of an album of piece or "something of some sort", and its overall originality, although this is not a word I like to use. There maybe a lot more theories, but they're just theories... ------------- What is This? It is what keeps us going... |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 18:19
I think the ultimate gem is on the Crimson page:
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 05:37
|
It might not help anything to have this pointed out, but the term "classical" is not held up by the music that represents it, perhaps not any more than "progressive" is. I don't mean to conjure once again the simple observation that the term classical is used for music not in that style; that's true but it's something we all know, a different argument. I mean the term was invented, later, to refer to a music that sought to achieve the pleasing balances, but by new means, that the people of that time were discovering (and assuming) the Greeks and Romans (ie. the Classical people) to have employed and to have invested in their works of art, chiefly in the ancient architecture, sculpture and drama. So if I'm not wrong here, and Classical music was a label for musics preoccupied with balance, with everything having a reason and place, well then you immediately find problems. I won't even bring up Beethoven, who existed on the brink of change (progress?, anyway I'm sticking to classical here). Scarlatti might hold up, but the oft-cited father of the style "Papa" Haydn violated his own principles when he pleased, for instance writing sonatas that had a middle movement in a quite unrelated key (even ugly by a thorough-going analysis). In fact Mozart used Haydn's models and was more "classical" than him! The real classical in music, if you accept the term, lies mostly with all the composers whose names have not been passed down to us. Anyway, if you accept all this then you see with Classical another term invented to describe something that had already got quite underway without a name; and as time went on it lost parts of its rigor (as a definition) and accepted fresh somewhat-related musics that kept it alive, because, you might say, it had to. Thoughts? ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: MaxerJ
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 05:37
|
Hi everyone at PA! I've been lurking around here for a while, catching up on some juicy prog goodness, but this thread made me join with its awesome power. Anyway, down to the point. I've tried to put together some of the various definitions so far to make something so obscure it's definite. Here goes: 'Progressiveness is a quality given to music that is designed from conception to subvert the rigidity of mainstream music, and instead focus on the sonic capabilities of both singular musicians and international music styles.' Oh well, i tried. And i'm fully aware of my own noobishness, but I personally feel that we must take the good (Yes, Krimson) with the bad (Dragonforce, Dragonforce) instead of trying to make a definition that only allows CttE and Thick as a Brick. After all, 'Sexyback' may be a 'good' pop song and 'Like a Prayer' may be a bad (normal) pop songs, but any pop fan (our hated enemies) would not be able to deny that they are both still pop. Forgive my outburst. It was in reply to a statement about 'good and bad prog' i had seen somewhere. ------------- Godspeed, You Bolero Enthusiasts  'Prog is all about leaving home...' - Moshkito
|