Maybe. For me, prog may learn a lot more from classical music than it does now. More subtleties, more complexity. More uncompromising music as well. More bands that would have the same sense of adventure as Beethoven, Bartok, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, to name but a few.

But on the other hand: prog has more climaxes than most classical music. And I like the idea that both acoustic and electric instruments are used in prog. And listening to bands like Yes and ELP in the early '70's, you get the impression that ANYTHING is possible in the music.

Innovation: okay, from the beginning of prog in the '60's until now a lot has happened, especially between '69 and '75. But the innovation in prog nowadays is not very hopeful.

I hope there will be a prog-renaissance.

EugeneK wrote: Unfortunately classical music easily wins this contest, not because I like classical music more, but because its objectively, more sophisticated and intellectual. For example, take compositions for the piano of Rachmaninov or Chopin. These compositions are many times more technically proficient than the best Emerson or Wakeman keyboard songs. The number of instruments in a standard classical symphony is several times bigger than in the usual 4 musicians prog band, and the interweaving between these instruments is more complex. However prog has some advantages(its generally freer, and more innovative), yet the loss of such virtuosity skills as with Paganini on the violin, or Rachmaninov on the keyboard, makes me wonder. Aren't we now in the medieval age of music?

Welcome to the forum, Eugene!

The typical prog band consists of 5 members (vocal, guitar, keys, bass, drums), but many prog bands use many more musicians to record their albums, sometimes just string sections or choirs, sometimes complete orchestras.

If you're into classical music and don't mind metal sounds, you might like adagio:

http://www.adagio-online.com/_mp3/nextpro.mp3 - http://www.adagio-online.com/_mp3/nextpro.mp3

Tell me what you think about it ... I'm not saying that it is as complex as classical music, but I like it all the same.

EugeneK wrote: Unfortunately classical music easily wins this contest, not because I like classical music more, but because its objectively, more sophisticated and intellectual. For example, take compositions for the piano of Rachmaninov or Chopin. These compositions are many times more technically proficient than the best Emerson or Wakeman keyboard songs. The number of instruments in a standard classical symphony is several times bigger than in the usual 4 musicians prog band, and the interweaving between these instruments is more complex. However prog has some advantages(its generally freer, and more innovative), yet the loss of such virtuosity skills as with Paganini on the violin, or Rachmaninov on the keyboard, makes me wonder. Aren't we now in the medieval age of music?

I love to see such a great topic being started. It may be a year-long, talk, but for now in passing I can notice that you seem to be very much focused on stuff like technicality, virtuosity and intellectualism. If so, I don't know if these are items to be attained per se and I don't know either if this is what makes music be music. Such things, i guess, may or may not work for music. For instance, Liszt's "Transcendental studies" doesn't get much listening from me these days, unlike Brahms' concertos for piano and orchestra, reputedly hard-to-perform music, but obviously more appealing (to me, at least). I'm even more attracted by Moonlight or Waldstein Sonata by Ludwig van. Moreover, I don't think it's the virtuosity race prog necessarily plans to win, but rather the inventivity race...

Besides, whatever you called progressive-, or art- or whatever, it is essentially (...)-rock. Which loaned a lot from the vitality of the earlier "purer" rock bands and tried (successfully, IMHO) to take it further away, rendering it more sophisticated, more self-conscious etc. I love the top notch achievements of the prog bands (Yes, G. giant,, VdGG, J. Tull, Genesis) that knew to maintain such a fantastically inspired golden mean between the raw energy of rock and the complexity and seriousness and sensitivity and refinement of classical music. For me, this is the most felicitous and successful attempt in music.

Anyway, I love both genres for whatever is specific to them.

No discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Classical music was there years before rock music, and has done it all better many times.

Who cares what wins the contest-I like both.

Yet again it is a matter of taste................

It's apples and oranges.  It depends if you like piano, horns and strings over guitars, bass and drums.  Oh, looks like prog has put them all together before.

Prog obviously wins!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats why we are here isn't it?

If we prefered Classical we'd be on the Clas archives!

Both are complex manifestation of art. One more complex than the other, both styles are the best of the music genre (we have to include Jazz/fusion).

Shaman wrote:   Both are complex manifestation of art. One more complex than the other

A bit of a generalisation there.

"Classical Music per se, is no more worthy of merit than any other piece of music IMO.Nor does it need to be complex or indeed be more complex than rock music Prog or otherwise.

EugeneK wrote: Unfortunately classical music easily wins this contest, not because I like classical music more, but because its objectively, more sophisticated and intellectual. For example, take compositions for the piano of Rachmaninov or Chopin. These compositions are many times more technically proficient than the best Emerson or Wakeman keyboard songs. The number of instruments in a standard classical symphony is several times bigger than in the usual 4 musicians prog band, and the interweaving between these instruments is more complex. However prog has some advantages(its generally freer, and more innovative), yet the loss of such virtuosity skills as with Paganini on the violin, or Rachmaninov on the keyboard, makes me wonder. Aren't we now in the medieval age of music?

I don't understand why its unfortunate that Classical wins easily or why it being more "intelectual" makes it superior! You're whole argument seems flawed somehow!

Classical (objectively) wins, then comes Jazz, and later Prog.  I think.

Of course, objectivity in art is very ambiguous.

I do not think there is or ever will be contest like this.

Are you trying to figure out for yourself which one of two is closer to you, by putting them in opposites corners of the ring ??

Just one thing came to my mind:

I was listening to Univers Zero today, and suddenly it occured to me that something very similar (composition-wise, and mood-wise) I heard before. It was kind of deja-vu (or rather deja-ecoute?). I digged out an old vynil with Alfred Schnitke Concerto for Viola and Orchestra and was really amazed by how similar these two are, especially bearing in mind that Schnitke was accredited classical composer in communist state, and Univers zero are Rock-In-Opposition mighty representatives. And both were writing their works in about same time (80's).

So I think both genres are equally great and moving, both having their ups and downs, both going their own way, without any contest whatsoever.  

People are seeing it the wrong way; generalities. Take a classical piece and add drums, bass and guitars, and you have prog rock.

There is plenty of complex music in prog rock. Ozric Tentacles for example, is more complex than most classical.

Classical music is neither more sophisticated nor more intellectual than prog rock. Any fool can make a few inane note tables and claim intellectuality. It takes something more to make it sound good, that something can be found in both genres.

EugeneK wrote: Unfortunately classical music easily wins this contest, not because I like classical music more, but because its objectively, more sophisticated and intellectual. For example, take compositions for the piano of Rachmaninov or Chopin. These compositions are many times more technically proficient than the best Emerson or Wakeman keyboard songs. The number of instruments in a standard classical symphony is several times bigger than in the usual 4 musicians prog band, and the interweaving between these instruments is more complex. However prog has some advantages(its generally freer, and more innovative), yet the loss of such virtuosity skills as with Paganini on the violin, or Rachmaninov on the keyboard, makes me wonder. Aren't we now in the medieval age of music?

This is the exact thread I wanted to start but didn't want to ruffle any feathers.

I've listened to classical and jazz since around 1980. Only a few months ago did I discover the term progressive rock (prog); yet, I am finding that I've heard more of it than I ever realized. And I'm determined to go further in depth.

I tip my hat to all proggers who are creating or attempting to create worthwhile art. However, I have found that "classical" music - especially the music of the 19th and 20th century - offers a spiritual and emotional depth absent in prog. I'm speaking for myself and no one else.

Do prog bands incorporate elements of classical music? Of course, and by doing so, they acknowledge the beauty present in the musical achievements of western culture.

Is prog as objectively complex as classical music? As a trumpet player, I have practiced and performed all types of music, even jazz-rock, fusion, or whatever you'd like to call it. I've studied music theory for two years in college before changing my major from music to philosophy. Classical music is without a doubt more difficult to compose, perform, analyze, AND experience than prog in general.

I've played all types of popular music - rock, pop, R&B, even country,(believe it or not). Some of this music was challenging, but I have yet to find any piece of popular music as difficult as say a baroque piece written for trumpet, for instance, or the Hindemith Sonata for Trumpet.  There really isn't any comparison. This conclusion isn't based on a subjective whim but objective reality!

I would argue that it is in "classical" music that we find some of the most "progressive" composers. The 19th and 20th centuries stand out for me personally; have a listen to the compositions of Stravinsky, Holst, Bartok, Hindemith, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Ligeti, Cage, Ives, Roy Harris, etc.....just the tip of the iceberg.

Just one more step.....jazz obviously was the rock n roll of the day during the earlier part of the 20th century. It was based on the music of the people - not the elite class. Yet, jazz developed and became more complex as musicians began experimentation. In a matter of decades, we went from the spirituals, ragtimes, and the blues to swing, bop, post-bop, and even free jazz. As it developed and evolved - PROGRESSED?- the music alienated many listeners. How many people sit down to listen to the likes of Parker, Coltrane, or even today's Wynton Marsalis? Lord knows they've never heard of Ornette Coleman.

Point is that we find jazz going from popular music to what many consider as ART on the same level as classical music. (We had fusion going on there too...classical/jazz fusion, very interesting stuff.)

Question is.....does prog do the same? Has the prog movement brought rock out of the darkness of commercialism? Is it as complex as classical and jazz...obviously not. But is it art......that's the question I'm seeking to answer for myself.

I guess we have to arrive at a definition of what constitutes art in the first place.....and defining what true art is happens to be one hell of a task.

At any rate, classical music AND jazz win out every day over prog, but I still enjoy what I'm listening to.  ( Sorry so long)

"The greatest music ever made was made by people who wore wigs and stuff." -Frank Zappa

That's so true.

Is prog as objectively complex as classical music? As a trumpet player, I have practiced and performed all types of music, even jazz-rock, fusion, or whatever you'd like to call it. I've studied music theory for two years in college before changing my major from music to philosophy. Classical music is without a doubt more difficult to compose, perform, analyze, AND experience than prog in general.

I agree with you bmorgan 100%, as a guitar player who performed in four rock bands (one prog) & studied music theory for years. I've studied and tried to play some music from Bach, Beethoven, Paganini & Vivaldi, and believe me it's not an easy task. Jazz is also very interesting to study and perform.

i respect the principles of classical music...though i can easly get bored with it, depending on the style, bach is too routine for my taste...im more into schoenberg, stravinsky and stuff along those lines...and gershwin for fusing classical music with jazz...anyway i like prog more, because it takes those same principles and fuses them into a rock setting, making it more accesible for my taste.

boo boo wrote: i respect the principles of classical music...though i can easly get bored with it, depending on the style, bach is too routine for my taste...im more into schoenberg, stravinsky and stuff along those lines...and gershwin for fusing classical music with jazz...anyway i like prog more, because it takes those same principles and fuses them into a rock setting, making it more accesible for my taste.

Gershwin...da man!!!!

Doesn't get much better, IMHO !!!!! Yet, Berstein can be very jazzy himself.

As far as my musical knowledge reaches: Leonard Bernstein was the first person in pop history (West Side Story, 1961) who combined classical music and pop. After that, Burt Bacharach, the Beatles and Brian Wilson did the same (and of course prog music after that).

Another amazing thing, Leonard Bernstein also combined pop and jazz. But still I think he made some concessions combining all these genres. But that was also the reason he did manage to get so many people together for a musical. And that's also the reason I do not find all of West Side Story that great (the best song from West Side Story "Mambo" was even left out on the LP, some concession...).

Andrew Lloyd Webber didn't make any concession at all in 1973 (Jesus Christ Superstar) and managed to combine pop and classical music in a much better way than Bernstein did. But Andrew wasn't the first...

If I'm not right here, I would like to know...was Bernstein really the first person?

bmorgan wrote: boo boo wrote: i respect the principles of classical music...though i can easly get bored with it, depending on the style, bach is too routine for my taste...im more into schoenberg, stravinsky and stuff along those lines...and gershwin for fusing classical music with jazz...anyway i like prog more, because it takes those same principles and fuses them into a rock setting, making it more accesible for my taste. Gershwin...da man!!!! Doesn't get much better, IMHO !!!!! Yet, Berstein can be very jazzy himself.

 In another thread, I called Rhapsody In Blue the first prog epic ... not completely accurate, but it was quite progressive at the time. It fused classical music with the popular non-classical music of the time (Jazz).

Odd24 wrote: As far as my musical knowledge reaches: Leonard Bernstein was the first person in pop history (West Side Story, 1961) who combined classical music and pop. After that, Burt Bacharach, the Beatles and Brian Wilson did the same (and of course prog music after that). Another amazing thing, Leonard Bernstein also combined pop and jazz. But still I think he made some concessions combining all these genres. But that was also the reason he did manage to get so many people together for a musical. And that's also the reason I do not find all of West Side Story that great (the best song from West Side Story "Mambo" was even left out on the LP, some concession...). Andrew Lloyd Webber didn't make any concession at all in 1973 (Jesus Christ Superstar) and managed to combine pop and classical music in a much better way than Bernstein did. But Andrew wasn't the first... If I'm not right here, I would like to know...was Bernstein really the first person?

George Gerschwin before him........

And also check out the piano compositions of Zez Confrey...

Valarius wrote: I'd definately go with Prog, however, I really like Classical music, but consider it more as a background music.

BACKGROUND MUSIC????

HERETIC......OFF WITH HIS HEAD

just kidding

Valarius wrote: I'd definately go with Prog, however, I really like Classical music, but consider it more as a background music.

Go The Way You Go ...

I guess it's as difficult to "convert" a proghead to classical music as to convert a rock/pop fan to prog.

I can't believe some people make "contests" like this one. Sounds like another cheap TV show !!!

Progressive Rock was nailed by intellectual music critics in the seventies because they thought it was being pretentious... and this led to its downfall and the rise of Punk. So don't show the critics they were right !  

Progressive Rock has the word Rock. Don't forget it.

As for bands like Univers Zéro. I like to think that "Rock" doesn't necesserily mean a four men band with guitar, bass, drums and keys... this is where 'Progressive" comes in.

In my humble opinion of course.

bmorgan wrote: Odd24 wrote: As far as my musical knowledge reaches: Leonard Bernstein was the first person in pop history (West Side Story, 1961) who combined classical music and pop. ... If I'm not right here, I would like to know...was Bernstein really the first person? George Gerschwin before him........ And also check out the piano compositions of Zez Confrey...

Good to know...I do not know very much of what happened to popmusic before 1965 (I was born in 1973). Mainstream popmusic from 1960-1964 wasn't exactly my cup of tea. That actually gives a wrong impression on anything good made in popmusic before 1965...

Snow Dog wrote: Prog obviously wins!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats why we are here isn't it? If we prefered Classical we'd be on the Clas archives!

For me it does, but only because I don't know many classical composers.

I like Stravinski, Tsjaikofski, Mozart, and some others very much.

However the best ballet-music is still 'Le Sacre du printemps' no prog can ever really compete with that if you'd ask me, which with this thread they did.

List of favourite classical compositions.

1. Le Sacre Du Printemps (Stravinski)
2. Firebird Suite (Stravinski)
3. Eroica (Beethoven)
4. Le Quatro Stagioni (Vivaldi)
5. Fifth Symphony (Beethoven)
6. Don Giovanni (Mozart)
7. 1812 (Tchaikovski)

don't know many more, I ussualy only listen to the overtures, or excerpts from symphonies and opera's, but I'm sure there are many more classical masterpieces to be discovered.

Annie way anyone know the classical counterpart to progarchives.

http://www.classicalarchives.com/comps/ - classicalarchives

bmorgan wrote: Valarius wrote: I'd definately go with Prog, however, I really like Classical music, but consider it more as a background music. BACKGROUND MUSIC???? HERETIC......OFF WITH HIS HEAD just kidding

Why kidding? I really think he should be tortured with a recording of LaBrie singing The Spice Girls Greatest Hits (over and over again)

NetsNJFan wrote: They are both great, my two favortite genres, (prog and classical), and both have different strengths and weaknesses.  they are both lightyears ahead of everything else out there, but I happen to think (good) classical wins easily.

What about Jazz? Or Jazz/Classical Fusion like Gershwin or Ravel?

NetsNJFan wrote: They are both great, my two favortite genres, (prog and classical), and both have different strengths and weaknesses.  they are both lightyears ahead of everything else out there, but I happen to think (good) classical wins easily.

Jazz/Fusion Jazz anyone? But I do agree. Good Classical is somewhat better than Prog, but I like Progressive Rock/Metal better.

King of Loss wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: They are both great, my two favortite genres, (prog and classical), and both have different strengths and weaknesses.  they are both lightyears ahead of everything else out there, but I happen to think (good) classical wins easily. Jazz/Fusion Jazz anyone? But I do agree. Good Classical is somewhat better than Prog, but I like Progressive Rock/Metal better.

its like the other thread, I dont really like Jazz, but I respect it enormously (especially when you consider the enormous amount of sh*t out there)