Here are the qualities of what I would describe as a progressive rock song:

 

1.  The chorus is not the primary focus:  So typical pop-song has lyrics which are more or less bracketed by the chorus which is repeated at the end of each stanza or set of stanzas that uniquely repeats and is usually present at the end of the song where the chorus is oftentimes repeated at additional length; this gives the chorus the common role as the thesis or focus of the song both lyrically and musically; in progressive rock this can be true but a true progressive song will find that the chorus competes at best with other aspects of the song, often the instrumental passages, as the true focus

 

2.  Instruments lead:  whether an instrumental section replaces the chorus or an extended instrumental section garners the song's spotlight, instrumental passages are what substitute as the focus for the song and not the chorus

 

3.  Instrumental or vocal passages are progressive:  the overall form of the song or a prominant (timewise) instrumental passage in a song takes the form of a succession of unique musical phrases or melodies; the Beatles' "Abbey Road medley" qualifies as a progression of vocal melodies and that qualifies; in this case, even the fact that "You Never Give Me Your Money" melody could be seen to frame the medley it is too decentralized to be considered a chorus and it doesn't reflect the meaning of the song as a whole (if it can be said that the song has a "thesis" or central meaning); additionally Genesis' "Looking for Someone" contains a series of vocal sections (that start the same but don't have a proper chorus) with a progressive instrumental section in the middle and towards the end

 

4.  The progression is not an improvisation:  a guitar solo or an evolving guitar, bass, drum, keyboard solo is not a progressive instrumental in my view, it is a jam session or an improvisation that has been given the appearance of composition merely because it has been recorded and can be heard repeatedly; the progression is a creative series of different melodies or phrases and can be quiet close to an improvisation; but it should be composed enough that it relates back out to the rest of the song and is generally performed in the same way at concerts because it requires the coordinated efforts of the band and is not simply a place where one band member can "go solo".

 

So to provide two examples...on Chicago Transit Authority's album their first song "Introduction" is progressive whereas their last song "Liberation" is not.  Both have significant instrumental sections, in fact, "Liberation" is fully instrumental, but there is relatively little progression of musical ideas in "Liberation".  Rather there is an introductory theme (which I think is awesome) then a very long improvisational section followed by a kind of recovery section at the end with reflects the initial theme without repeating it. 

 

Genesis' Trespass has five songs which I think qualify as progressive rock songs and one which does not or is a borderline case based on my definition:

 

Progressive Rock songs

 

Looking for Someone: lack of chorus; prominent progressive instrumental sections

 

White Mountain: lack of chorus, lyrics tell a story (which is a progressive element especially when there is not a chorus) and the story is the focus; progressive instrumental sections

 

Vision of Angels: has clear chorus, but is counter-balanced as song focus by prominent progressive instrumental sections

 

Stagnation: lack of chorus; overall song structure moves forward through various musical themes without a central melody; prominent progressive instrumental sections

 

The Knife: lack of chorus; overall song structure moves forward through various musical themes; prominent progressive instrumental sections

 

Not strictly a progressive rock song

 

Dusk: has clear chorus; has progressive instrumental section which is weakly progressive and has the character of a flute improvisation

 

Really each song has its progressive section and I would probably rank the songs in the following order in terms of "progressiveness"

 

1.  Stagnation/The Knife

2.  White Mountain/Looking for Someone

3.  Vision of Angels

4.  Dusk

 

Anyway these are my thoughts at this point in my musical review process and in my understanding of progressive rock and why I like the music I like (I like progressive music mixed with a dose of non-progressive so long as the instrumental or vocal talent is there).   

 

I expect that my definition will be seen as restrictive mainly because I literally see the "progressive" element in the song as defining of progressive rock.

 

I think the above could constitute a core definition of progressive and many of the additional attributes associated with progressive rock (instrumental skill, song length, etc.) could be seen as derivative of these central attributes.

 

Any and all comments welcome.

 

The importance of instrumental sections is true of almost any great recording. The most prototype songs of the hippy era "For What It's Worth" and Hendrix's "Watchtower" are as defined by the instrumental sound as their (amazing) lyrics. Both have good but not stellar singing. Neither are really prog.

 

Your #4 is extremely important for my personal taste in prog, but there is improvisation all over many prog bands. Many fans feel a need for improvisation to enjoy the music. I personally like composed lines over improvisation in all but the most skillful hands. Many of my favorite prog musicians can evolve an improvised line into something amazing, but their raw improv is noodly and to me boring. This is one of the biggest contrasts between Steve Howe, Hackett, and Hillage. Hillage was the best improvisor, Hackett rarely even attempts improv, and Howe can be the most pointless noodler ever, but he also has some great parts through the years.

 

 

 

Improvisation:

 

1.  An improvisation tends to feature a single instrument in the foreground playing a very complex, non-repetitive part while the rest of the band plays a very repetitive background part.

 

2.  An improvisation tends to not have a repetitive structure on the multi-measure level

 

3.  An improvisation tends to be played differently at different performances

 

4.  An improvisation tends to be spontaneous rather than composed

 

Progressive instrumental:

 

1.  A progressive instrumental tends to blend instrumental parts together in a coordinated fashion

 

2.  A progressive instrumental tends to have a repetitive structure on the multi-measure level as does the instrumental accompaniment during vocal sections of the song

 

3.  A progressive instrumental tends to be played in the same way at different performances

 

4.  A progressive instrumental is composed rather than spontaneous

 

5.  Most importantly a progressive instrumental has two or more changes in melody over the course of its occurrence, a single melody, unless it develops in a building fashion (like Wurm in Starship Trooper) tends to qualify as a bridge rather than a progressive instrumental

 

 

 

 

I'd take it further and say look at Pink Floyd and King Crimson, both used improvisation extensively both live and in studio but both improvised around a set structure that gave the improvs purpose and direction, moving the songs through different "places" and dynamics, something that you wouldnt get from a simple jam band, and this is definitely an aspect of progressive rock IMO, the mix of directed and composed improvisation with specifically composed music. 

 

mdelval, I want to be careful not to confuse progressive vs non-progressive with good vs bad.  I also don't want to characterize an improvisation as bad.  But I'm not sure how I would define a progressive vs non-progressive improvisation.  So I am left with drawing the soft line (with a lot of use of the word "tends") between an improvisation and my so-called "progressive instrumental".  And I can't say that a song with an improvisational part is less progressive IF the other qualities apply.

 

For me the term progressive really is suggestive in that there is a progression or sense of progress in the structure of the song or passage.  The Beatles' Abbey Road medley is a progression of melodies and is progressive rock in that sense even though it doesn't have a definite progressive instrumental section.  "Wurm" in Yes' "Starship Trooper" is a progressive instrumental because although it doesn't move through multiple melodic parts it progresses in a building way like the classical orchestral warm-up exercise "Bolero" by Ravel is such a wonderful example of.

 

Also, as in Genesis' "White Mountain", I see the fact that the song follows a linear story line as a progressive structure especially as it abandons the chorus and includes some progressive instrumental sections.  When I listen to Space Revolver by The Flower Kings I realize how little many of the songs return to a melody that they start out with.  In that sense these songs are progressive through and through.

 

As with any definition I'm sure it has its problems.  And as with any human creative effort, trying to precisely pidgeon-hole it is bound to failure.  As I continue my album reviews I will see if my definition holds up.  To restate it in really simple terms:

 

1.  De-emphasis on chorus as focus of song

 

2.  Increase in complexity of instrumental sections

 

I think these two aspects can cover a lot.  Also, in judging this definition understand that I am not defining a progressive rock band but a single song.  You may find that defining a single song vs a band is bound to place many songs by a quintessentially progressive rock band outside the definition of progressive rock.  And I don't see a problem with that.

 

So if you see any logical holes or your think the definition is too narrow, please comment.  Again, this is a "definers" game I am playing and I don't see any of this discussion as necessary to an appreciation of the music.  But I think it is a fun intellectual challenge and looking at these aspects of songs does help me appreciate the music I love to listen to.

 

 

Well, there you go...there is a creative tension between the improvised and the composed, between order and crafted disorder.  I may need to extend my definition a bit.  I'm also somewhat hampered perhaps by the fact that I do not attend live performances hardly at all.  If you add a composed progressive element to the improv/jam, then you have "progressified" the song...

1.  An improvisation tends to feature a single instrument in the foreground playing a very complex, non-repetitive part while the rest of the band plays a very repetitive background part.

 

So ... you have now "defined" an improvisation ... which means it is no longer an improvisation! ANY improvisation would be less worried about the instruments than what is happening at the moment ... do not try to define "improvisation" through/via mind exercises, because that is an oxymoron.

 

If you check the improvisations in a lot of krautrock, it is about ALL the instruments ... not just one. It will no longer be an improvisation if you are going to specify what to do!

 

But ... there are some improvisations, like the ones that Miles Davis made famous ... we start here, then you do this, then John does that, then Tom does this, then I come in. In between it's all over ...

 

2.  An improvisation tends to not have a repetitive structure on the multi-measure level.

 

Not necessarily ... you have not heard a lot of hindu and other music and specially ragas, that tend to run all over the place and are not repetitive. We're stuck in a "classical western music" mode ... and think that only something can be done and has to be done this way. They can be repetitive as a starting point to getting somewhere ... you can see this with Klaus Schulze and AshRaTempel and Manuel Gottsching. ... ohh I forgot .. you only listen to Genesis!

 

3.  An improvisation tends to be played differently at different performances

 

It would not be an improvisation if it was the same thing. 

 

4.  An improvisation tends to be spontaneous rather than composed

 

Correct .. although some portions and connection points (where the musicians meet) can be decided upon, and that could be a composed or pre-decided place or specific set of notes.

 

1.  A progressive instrumental tends to blend instrumental parts together in a coordinated fashion

 

As noted above, it may or may not be coordinated. But it is more often than not "pre-defined" in a generic sort of way so the musicians tend to meet in one spot.  Check out CAN in things like Tago Mago ... and then EGE BAMYASI, and then FUTURE DAYS, and you can see the experimental element being extended. Amon Duul 2 as well all the way through VIVE LA TRANCE ... most bands could not sustain this type of work as it takes a lot of dedication and concentration. And when the majority of populist music is "hits", doing this kind of thing, specially in rock music ... is really difficult, not satisfying and worst of all ... they will never get some respect for the creativity that they deserve -- specially from musicatorios.

 

Music schools are also important ... by far, the best and most important music school in the world that specializes in improvisation, And that is the Berlin Conservatory of Music ... they have been at it for 60 years now ... and the results and what happened with electronics and some other arts and music in Germany are far more complex than the simplistic and over-analyzed rock'n'roll ways re-used in most of the english speaking world.

 

2.  A progressive instrumental tends to have a repetitive structure on the multi-measure level as does the instrumental accompaniment during vocal sections of the song

 

I doubt it. That's like saying that macaronni and cheese has to be yellow. Can I use Jack Cheese instead? It might for rock'n'roll presets since the history of rock'n'roll itself is not specifically or musically innovative at all ... but to say that to other folks that are NOT playing rock'n'roll and are basing their rock music off Rachmaninoff ... would be crazy. It's not even close!

 

Vocals can also be "improvised" ... as well. You can hear it in CAN and AMON DUUL 2 and some of the meanderings in ASH RA TEMPEL ... in the actual "progressive" mode as you suggest, you are saying this within a ROCK context, or a conventional music concept that you and I have heard 1000 times before. In other words ... it is now no longer "progressive" ... since you are specifying how it should be or not be. AND, more importantly, you took the freedom out of the vocalists mouth ...

 

3.  A progressive instrumental tends to be played in the same way at different performances

 

Would you like to hear 20 different versions of Atom Heart Mother so you know this is not true? Later on, during DSOTM and stuff, PF got more computerized and co-ordinated with the light show that took out all of their flowing around ... but playing it the same each time, is also one of the things that hurt the band the most ... they got bored. Good think you never heard a Led Zeppelin bootleg ... it was progressive then, and you know the difference ... it was really progressive in concert!

 

4.  A progressive instrumental is composed rather than spontaneous.

 

So sorry. This is complete and utter bullpucky  ... .

 

5.  Most importantly a progressive instrumental has two or more changes in melody over the course of its occurrence, a single melody, unless it develops in a building fashion (like Wurm in Starship Trooper) tends to qualify as a bridge rather than a progressive instrumental.

 

Now the music is no longer progressive ... it is totally regressive and a copy ... it is now "composed" and the only progressive thing in it is either a sound effect or the heavy Hammond sound by Keith ...

 

I really think that in this work you might re-consider re-evaluating "prog" ... because you are basing your precepts on one type of music from one country and one place ... London.

 

For this work to be more valuable and competent, I would like to suggest that you go spend some time checking out the jazz clubs in Paris (off the rocker stuff!) ... and then the blue/jazz clubs (America) ... and a lot of other places. Germany is good too, as it tends to mix and match cultures a lot ... and it is difficult to consider one type of music "progressive" simply because you heard a sitar playing along with the electric guitar. ? ... see the difference?

 

New York also had a free form scene in the late 60's that kinda died when Andy Warhol died ... but folks like Lou Reed, John Cale, Lori Anderson and a handfull of others are still there and they are as free form as you can get ... even Lori Anderson comes off as "composed" .. but if you see her  in concert ... you can tell that there are composed parts for the backing layers but the top is all over the place ... a lot of these people came out of that experimentation age ... and they are not afraid to do so ... that doesn't mean they can not do something that is regimented and controlled ... they are good enough musicians to do so ... but that is not what they want to do ... they would not be who they are if they had done what "you expect" ... and we haven't even touched Frank Zappa ... that although composed for the most part in rehearsal, when it came to concerts there was no one that I have ever seen that was less afraid of improvisation than Frank ... and that is a massive tribute to his intelligence and musical ability!

 

In the end, this is ALL about "music" ... not anything else ... and people wanting to "expand it" further and further ... the problem with labels is that it tends to lessen the music to a rock'n'roll idiom ... sonata, three movements, rinse adn repeat ... and trust me ... we would not have "prog" if it weren't for the silly regimentation and the idea that music can't be anything else but someone's idea.

 

It's really simple ... it really is ... you want to try something and the context may have a guitar behind it or not ... there is no difference ... if it is improvisation!

 

Just wanted to add one more bit here ... Janis Joplin was an excellent vocalist .. what made her difficult to work with was that she was all over the place and explored continuously ... and no where will you ever see this better than the bit they added to the recent revamped release of Woodstock.

 

Her material had never been used before and everyone had said that it was not very goog and it was difficult and not very good.

 

Maybe it was the recording ... maybe it was this or that ... but what I heard was pure improvisation based on a feeling ... and you can not define improvisation any better than that ... anytime, or ever.

 

There is one problem ... because it is so "improv" ... and "out there" ... it almost came off as out of place ... but I can tell you one thing ... the two biggest symbols of that time and that concert are right there in that film ... Janis and Jimi ... one wanted to bring all this home ... LOVE ... and the other ... wanted to make sure that the music meant a lot more than just ... garbage ...

 

Those were very important moments, and I'm not happy that Michael Radleigh had held off that moment ... from the original ... because the one thing that we lost in the 70's was the feeling ... we didn't trust it anymore ... and it became the age of the dope and the greed.

 

In both those cases, these moments spoke more about what true music inside really was ... and where it came from .. the heart ... because without the strength and the desire, the love, and the beauty inside that heart ... there is no music!  

 

 It's not just about notes, concepts and ideas ... and that is the most important thing that you are not detailing in the beginning of your study.

 

Your 3rd post also concurs with most of what I have written about Prog on this site (use the search function!) in that the old verse/chorus structure is a fairly clear indicator of non-prog - but there are major exceptions to this "rule", so this is more a strong guideline than an essential indicator.

The other main feature, structurally speaking is the twin facets of improvisation and composition. I would say that a progressive piece blends the two such that they are indistuinguishable from each other - where does the improvisation finish and the composition begin?

 

A progression need not be an improvisation - and for a piece to contain a "progression" does not necessarily mean it's progressive or Progressive Rock!

 

The Abbey Road medley is a borderline call - essentially, it's just a medley, something that any rock band could, did and still do arrange.

 

It's a very interesting medley, as it appears to show some form of overall coherence and flow - which gives rise to the feeling of some kind of progression in a less abstract sense, rather than being a simple selection of unrelated pieces stitched together like a patchwork quilt.

 

The last point I want to pick up on is timbre.

 

This is one of the 5 main elements of music, and for Prog to "sound like" Prog, it must have a proggy timbre - and much modern Prog seems to depend on rhythm and timbre to qualify itself with fans of the genre instead of the underlying formal intricacies which make "Classic" Prog so appealing to me.

 

Timbre is simply what it sounds like - the instrumentation and arrangements, e.g. dominance of chords with added 6ths or susp 4ths, avoidance of i-iv-v progressions, etc.

 

 

I've written so much on the subject that I don't really want to go any deeper at the moment - but am happy to explore any particular point. After all, if if the music isn't prog, we couldn't enjoy such deep analysis of it, could we?

 

 

There is one thing that is weird for me ...  all music is prog ... Debussy was prog at the time, Ravel was prog at the time, Stravinsky was prog at the time. Rock music is blowing out the musical concepts altogether and is ... for now ... way more prog ... and further has muddled the ability to define "prog" within a proper musical context ... c'mon ... put Rachmaninoff in your rack on the keyboard ... the majority of rock music is playpen Sesame Street stuff by comparison, and calling it "prog" is bizarre as the majority of musical elements in it ... have been there before ... many times!  And the worse at times, is thinking something is prog because of all the effects ... if you score it down without the effects ... the same notes ... and Andy Summers made this clear in the Behind the Music video ... he showed some chords without the effects and it sounded great and we love it ... and then he turned off everything ... and it was poor  ... and he suggests that a lot of rock music is a search for a sound ... not music ...

 

I can't help thinking that the suggestion almost is that improvisation on paper (a la Stravinsky) is ok, but an improvisation with an instrument plugged in without the paper is not.

 

The other issue is ... how do people balance themselves out inside the music ... within an improvisation so they do not lose touch with each other ... and sound stupid ...

 

And then the next question ... how to define progressive within a musical context ... with music history in mind ... not inventing a song example and call it the end of the world ... like suggesting a song by YES is prog ... and something else has to be composed like it. ... meet the new boss ... same as the old boss! ... good morning starshine, it's a new dawn, same as the old dawn!

 

Suggesting how to improvise is tough ... I would think that one can say ... this chord is sacred and we go all over the place and when you hear this chord we come back ... and when do we/I play that chord? -- when one of us is lost? ... that can be done and discussed before hand ... or ... we can say a la Miles we take turns ... or you can do it a la Krautrock ... just do it ... the result is not as important as the doing of it (how very eastern and zen'ish this is!) ...

 

And to suggest that any of those 3 ideas has anything to do with "prog" is silly ... you can do the same thing in blues with a chord ... and that's what they teach bass players for the most part ... spend a few minutes or days reading a couple of issues of Bass Player!

 

In general, the majority of "prog" is an attempt to do something that others have not done before ... at the time it was just like the veritable Star Trek ... without the cardboard color sets and fake wigs on women!  And it's kinda bizarre that we do not accept this ... it's not about a key, or chord or idea ... since they all differ anyway ... and London is not the only prog ... San Francisco was way more prog than anywhere else all the way up to 1975 or so (I would say) ... with bands just all over the place musically and doing some rather far out things ... and it was cool ... London, by comparison was way too "composed", compared to the wildness and freedom that some of these had. ... sadly ... it was mostly in the clubs ... and not all of it made it to record ... but there are memorable things ... that still get heard today.  And no one talks about the French scene, that is downright "anti-music", "anti-prog"  and as I like to say ... in general ... "anti-everything" for the sake of being "anti-anything" ... but while we call Genesis progressive ... many here do know ANGE and do not consider it "progressive" ... and they did more an dfor much longer than Genesis ... did ... and they did not have to say Genesis was the influence, when theirs was Jacques Brel, and a lot of the fantasy literature that has been around for years ... and I even wonder ... who influenced who ... I see a lot of "Caricatures" in "The L:amb Lies Down... " ...  but again, it is easy for us to compare the electricity ... but somehow the one in London is right and everywhere else it is not  --- and I think that needs to stop!

 

There are a few bits and pieces there;

 

1. All music could be prog, if a bunch of prog fans got together and decided it was. Or if another bunch of prog fans decided it wasn't, then it isn't.

 

2. Debussy, Ravel and Stravinsky were progressive composers every bit as much as Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were. The very greatest composers were also the greatest improvisers, even though - and this is quite an important distinction - the two disciplines are quite separate. These composers also happened to push the boundaries of what was technically acceptable and/or possible at the time. A more important point in context is that none played Rock music, so none were "Prog"

 

3. You seem to be stating the common misconception that "Prog" is somehow more complex than other forms of rock music, or that the music of the great composers is essentially more complex than that of most rock musicians. This is, of course, self-evident - the music of the great composers is more complex than that of most other music composers. Most is the operative word here, and it depends on where you are looking for complexity. Rakhmaninov's music is simple fayre compared tothe music of Liszt, for example, on a technical level. But I think that Rakhmaninov had a far more lyrical approach to the art of variation writing which brings the music to life in a way that the technical nightmares of Liszt remain dead.

 

4. As I pointed out above, timbre is one of the 5 key ingredients of music. Play Debussy's "Clair de Lune" without adding the necessary expressiveness and it is transformed from a piece of musical magic into a tiresome dirge. You cannot do without any of the 5 musical elements - take one away, and the result will NOT be the music you started with, just a bunch of notes. Music is more than the sum of its parts.

 

moshkito wrote:     I can't help thinking that the suggestion almost is that improvisation on paper (a la Stravinsky) is ok, but an improvisation with an instrument plugged in without the paper is not.

 

I'm not sure who is making this suggestion, but I completely agree, it is without any substance.

 

moshkito wrote:   The other issue is ... how do people balance themselves out inside the music ... within an improvisation so they do not lose touch with each other ... and sound stupid ...

 

This is where the personalities of the band come in. Not only must each member be a good improvisor in terms of being able to invent ideas on the fly, but the musicians need to be able to read and communicate with each other in the context of the piece that they are playing.

 

You also have to take into account individual member's moods, and such like - it is hard to get a band together that can deliver great impropvised music, but I have heard some simply astonishing jazz bands that seem to be able to twist the musical nuances of a piece so that it is tailored to the audience. A great jazz band can make you feel like they are, in fact, re-writing the piece to suit YOU.

 

The magic of an improvising band cannot be explained. It just happens.

 

OK, I admit it - it can be explained, I'm just not inclined to go into it any further - I think these illustrations are adequate

 

 

moshkito wrote:   And then the next question ... how to define progressive within a musical context ... with music history in mind ... not inventing a song example and call it the end of the world ... like suggesting a song by YES is prog ... and something else has to be composed like it. ... meet the new boss ... same as the old boss! ... good morning starshine, it's a new dawn, same as the old dawn!

 

The problem of defining progressive in a musical context comes up time and time again, yet it is not so hard.

 

Progressive is a colourful word with many shades of meaning, and could easily apply to almost imperceptible aspects as well as the music as a whole. One "simply" needs to create a framework - decide what it is in the music that needs to be progressive, then create some kind of sliding scale so that you end up with a kind of graph.

 

That doesn't sound like something I'd want to do - but it's the only way to measure it fully scientifically.

 

moshkito wrote:   In general, the majority of "prog" is an attempt to do something that others have not done before ... at the time it was just like the veritable Star Trek ... without the cardboard color sets and fake wigs on women!  And it's kinda bizarre that we do not accept this ... it's not about a key, or chord or idea ... since they all differ anyway ... and London is not the only prog ... San Francisco was way more prog than anywhere else all the way up to 1975 or so (I would say) ... with bands just all over the place musically and doing some rather far out things ... and it was cool ... London, by comparison was way too "composed", compared to the wildness and freedom that some of these had. ... sadly ... it was mostly in the clubs ... and not all of it made it to record ... but there are memorable things ... that still get heard today.

 

I have to disagree with this point!

 

The problem with much of the SF "wild" stuff is that it wasn't composed enough - much was just wacky noise with little musical value to my ears, and definitely not what I'd call progressive - a lot of it was based on ideas that avant-garde composers had already had 30 years previously!

 

It wasn't exactly "free" either - most consisted of a 3, 2 or even 1-chord jam session that went on for 20-minutes, while some bore played pentatonic scales on a fuzz-ed out guitar at the audience.

 

OK, my over-simplification is harsh, and much good (and progressive) music came from that scene - particularly The Doors, who I would argue kicked the whole thing off and lent it the base sound.

 

The London scene was progressive mainly because of its composed nature - this was something new in Rock music, thus inherently progressive. Much of it did not have a base sound to speak of - the music itself was inherently more radical and varied than rock music which had preceeded it, despite coming across as more conservative. That's just one of those wierd paradoxes, I guess!

 

The Nice were the main exponents of it - I would say that their debut was the second Progressive Rock album proper, with "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" being the first.  

 

moshkito wrote:    And no one talks about the French scene, that is downright "anti-music", "anti-prog"  and as I like to say ... in general ... "anti-everything" for the sake of being "anti-anything" ... but while we call Genesis progressive ... many here do know ANGE and do not consider it "progressive" ... and they did more an dfor much longer than Genesis ... did ... and they did not have to say Genesis was the influence, when theirs was Jacques Brel, and a lot of the fantasy literature that has been around for years ... and I even wonder ... who influenced who ... I see a lot of "Caricatures" in "The L:amb Lies Down... " ...  but again, it is easy for us to compare the electricity ... but somehow the one in London is right and everywhere else it is not  --- and I think that needs to stop!

-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.

 

Of course jazz improv will make my definition of improvisation problematic and classical music will make my definition of prog as a whole problematic.  I'm not a student of all forms of music, just an avid lover of progressive rock and pop with a philosophical mindset. 

 

So a critique of my definition should start with your own definition of rock and go from there.

 

Also, I do not claim to know all progressive rock, I'm just developing a definition.  So after limiting the scope of my proposed definition to the realm of rock music, then you might offer specific examples to counter the validity of my definition or prove it...

 

I've added some new albums to my collection which include my first albums from the bands Aphrodite's Child, The Mothers of Invention and Magma so my musical scope is ever widening.

 

 

There are many forms and ideas for improvisation, and I have posted some examples here. One can do it a la Miles Davis, that is I do this, then you do that, then John does this, then Tom does that and then we come together ... a style that Miles made very famous and is almost the "de facto" standard definition for jazz in America.

 

Other types of improvisation include anywhere/everywhere and you can select a note or chord that you can not play with and when you, or you buddies do, it means, it's time to come together.

 

Others are simple time and place exploration with/without sound effects which still remain the best inspirations to improvise from. Krautrock played with a lot of sound effects to help define more music, and then took this to the next level by exploring the effects in the new synthesizers as sounds/effects that we had not heard before and what did they mean to our experience.

 

Take a look at the Carnegie concert by Keith Jarrett: mainly improvised, but it looks composed. And I'm sure Fripp improvises a lot.

 

Definitly Keith, and in general the majority of the ECM group of artists is almost all improvised.  Robert is more free form on his own solo albums than he is in KC, which he admits by saying that one pays the rent and other costs. KC is more of a controlled improvisation and I think that parts of it as somewhat defined and designed, allowing the freedom for the musicians in between. However, after these are "written" and "defined" as you can see in concert, it is no longer an improvisation. It is now a piece of music.

 

Stravinsky said that composing was only a controlled improvisation. I think people who say they don't like improvisation is because they are referring to a kind of improvisation in which they get lost, but we may compose music so that it looks as one of those improvisations in which you get lost.

 

It always was. But the problem with improvisation is that it introduces a lot of musical aspects and moments that music theorists can not explain or write down, or describe, (and I often say appreciate!) and as such it is not considered "musical" because it can't be written down. This has been the history of music for hundreds of years. (Think Mozart here in Amadeus -- too many notes!) And as such this is where rock music threw a serious wrench in those definitions. There is a lot of improvisation, there is a lot of emotion and there is a lot of stuff that is creating havoc with the musical theories and histories and in due time your generation and mine will be teaching and we will change the history of music since we accept this stuff a lot better and 50 years ago no one did!

 
The main issue I have with "progressive" is that the term itself is not capable of allowing a musician to express himself in however he/she sees fit. It's there to tell you and I about a style of music, but in the end, we do not allow anyone else to do anything because we shut the door on the definition ... and too many folks in here do not like the improvisation side of things at all, and in fact I like to joke they are afraid of it. It's really difficult to understand/listen to Amon Duul 2's Yeti and think, this is an improvisation? It is even more difficult to hear Can's Augmn and think, this is an improvisation? and how these people took the process of improvisation and went so much further with it than most composers ever could in their life time because an orchestra or fellow composer thought it was wrong. Today, that no longer happens and that is absolutely major ... totally major, and will change the course of history of music.

 

The hard part is that most rock musicians are not talented enough or experienced enough to experiment. Too many of them are relying on scales and notes and detail, and thus it is way easier to formulate a concept around that, than it is a concept that has ... invisible origins ... that many of us are afraid to discuss ... you can only define those with your feelings and how it felt at the moment. Later you can come up with the notes used, but re-creating that feeling is NOT the same thing.

 

And that is the main issue with "composition", to make sure that it can be played again. In a way it makes sense. How good would Orff and Bartok and Stravinsky and so many others be, if they could not be played back? ... but to me, the issue is the "acceptance" that we ALL have for different things. The main issue is, that you do not know exactly what you feel when you hear something totally new ... most of us don't ... where as a well known piece of music often tells you how you are supposed to feel ... I love when someone says that minor keys are sad ... all it says is that you are not listening to music. You are listening to notes.

 

Side note. In our theater department at UCSB there was a massive war between the English Department and the Theater Department. Why? The Professors in the English Department never saw a play in their life .. why? .. they came to count the Iambic Pentameter! ... the Drama department never read Shakespeare, because they were not into the poetry. They were into the character and the play! Now you tell me ... is this any different than what is going on here with music and the definition of "progressive" ...

 

Somewhere, these have to come together, or music is gonna die! Either we grow up and learn to appreciate the improvisations that help expand the music that we love ... but somehow, we don't love that father! ... how weird is that? We try to explain it with terms from another time and place, that do not encompass that which is being done today ... and it is not just in music. It's the same in almost all the arts.

 

The only good artist is the dead artist! And worst of all, we have a tendency to think that a person's expression is not a valid piece of work. Like your emotions have no value because it is not expressed in music, or my comments are sh*t because I say all this crap. And until such a time as we take each and every person's expression with more care and respect, I am not sure we can get away from "definitions" ... that sometimes I think are for people that do not like music. I love it when someone says they only listen to prog and then comment later that something is not prog. Might as well be listening to elevator music, where nothing matters in it, to anyone! All they are saying is that they like one group and not the other! And it has absolutely nothing to do with music or "prog" at all, because any music theorist could tear them apart in 10 minutes!