So I was thinking and I decided to post a short rant.

The term "prog rock" is a bastardization of the term "progressive." Prog rock is no more progressive than any other music. It has no end point, therefore it is not progressing anywhere to reach a final output. From Merriam Webster:

Progress: A forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal)

What goal? There is no movement from A to B; no fixed goals. There is only motion, so this term is severely overplayed. 

Therefore, there is no such thing as progressive rock and all this music and all of you people are involved in a big sham!!!

jk

But, imo, it's just a term for the category. In fact, the term "prog" fits better than "progressive rock" because at least we understand that it is a label for the type of music, not that it really describes the music very well. Much like the label of "alternative rock."  Alternative to what? The alternative is the mainstream!  The labels become meaningless.

Discuss.

As I noted in another thread, we tend to get too hung up on the word "progressive" when describing the genre.

I agree that for most instances, particularly when talking amongst the choir as we are, that "Prog Rock" suits the purpose just fine.

Originally in Britain, we did use "progressive" in its literal sense (from approx 1966  to about 1971), but it was co-joined by the word "music", as in "progressive music". But in those days there were comparatively few bands, and very little risk of musical overlap, so the the term "progressive music" sufficed - having said that, "underground music" (indicating the main fan base) would be used with equal relevance. Somebody tells me "Art Rock" came in soon after, but this term often reflected the musicians had gone to art college or university, and perhaps employed a few bars from the classical repertoise. (But the Kinks came under that heading).  However, "Art Rock" would have as much relevance into Glam Rock as Prog Rock, because of the way bands like Roxy Music dressed.

I can assure you the earliest albums found in the section "Progressive Music" in my local record shop were Canned Heat's first two LPs and John Mayall's "Diary Of A Band" - and then we won't have argued, because that music "progressed" the blues into electric blues rock. Soon after the Moody Blues would gone in that section - but it didn't really expand much until Krimson and Renaissance's first releases. The only real debate then was: do we put the new electrified folk in that section or in the well established "Folk" section?

Most the sub-divisions of prog have often come about after the music itself, and these terms being made up by some pundits in the media, rather than the musicians themselves. One exception I've come across - Vanilla Fudge were calling their stuff "Symphonic Rock" around 65/66 - but I bet with tongues firmly in cheeks.

Dick explains it well. "prog(ressive) rock" is an anachronism, but I can't think of another term that would do the job as well. When I come across the term I know more or less what it's referring to, although I still have some trouble getting to grips with the term 'progressive metal', which to me is almost a contradiction in terms.

"Progressive" has always meant for me  : "to progress to some other state" ie: "change" , meaning that its not the basic Verse / chorus structure of the standard 3 minute pop songs.

So Progressive Rock is Rock music, that changes more often than standard Rock forms. I know there is more to Prog Rock than just "many changes" but its my starting point to define the type.

Maybe Progressive means music that has progressed to a point to be too good to play on top forty or other mainstream radio stations.

Or better yet, how about the music of choice of progressive minded individuals.

Yeah, I think I fit that one