Defining "Prog" ... a practical solution

I like what Mike's done, and I pretty much agree with him. Great work, Mike.

I've been struggling for a few months with a visual representation of the definition of prog. I'm aware of the limitations of Venn diagrams - the boundaries tend to be far too rigid, and there are always exceptions - but it's the INTENT I'm interested in.

Could people please try to break this diagram? There should be a place for every band/artist. All comments are appreciated (though I'm not sure about those who think this is a waste of time - I'm not sure why you're reading this thread, in that case!).



Edit: Mike, I'm not trying to usurp your thinking. This is your thread. I'm adding to the debate. If you want me to naff off and make my own thread, I will.


Edited by russellk - July 02 2008 at 03:21

^ we should be careful to avoid misunderstandings here. I think that for example an album like Mahavishnu Orchestra's Inner Mounting Flame is not prog *by style*. I do think that it's progressive ... thus, by meeting the first criterium, I can call it "prog".

I just doubt that the proverbial "man on the street" back in 1973 would have named that album (or anything by Magma or Van der Graaf Generator) when you had asked him to name some important Prog Rock albums. It's much more likely that it would have been something by Yes or Genesis.

 

omri wrote: I think it's a nice way of classifying. Personally I will include A B & C as prog. However I think a true purist will choose only B . A real progressive artist is someone who did something totally new = something never been heared before. I'll use the example of Magma given earlier - this is a tottaly new thing and I think they are one of the most progressive bands ever.

Well, the classic bands/albums are a unique case - They also are A, since they define the reference for comparison. In essence, they're pretty similar in style to themselves ...

About Magma: I think that technically they are not part of the prog "nucleus". Undoubtedly many people who favor the Avant-Garde bands will disagree ... but in all fairness, I doubt that as far as popularity, number of fans etc. were concerned bands like Yes and Genesis were much more responsible for the formation of "Prog" as a genre/style than other bands like VdGG, Gentle Giant or Magma. I'm a big fan of those bands, but I think they are a prime example for bands which aren't that closely related to the purest forms of prog in terms of style (60%), but of course are very (truly) progressive (80-100%). As far as innovation is concerned ... Magma are pretty unique, but if you listen to an early album (e.g. 1,001 Degrees Centigrade) and then to for example Frank Zappa - Hot Rats, there are obvious connections/influences. I'm very sure that most of the time we think that something's unique and innovative, it's because we simply don't (yet) know all the influential albums. 

I think it's a nice way of classifying.

sleeper wrote: As for comparing Hinterland and Moonmadness, I'd say Wobbler, but thats just me.

Which means that I choose a good example for my point ... I'm also inclined to choose Wobbler, but I'm sure that many people would disagree.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: sleeper wrote: In general I agree with what you've said Mike and look at things in a similar way, but I think Whistler said it best in his blog; "Prog isn’t a sound; it’s a way of doing things. Or rather, it’s an ideal.". For me, those two sentencies sum up progressive music and can be applied to just about everything we consider progressive here in the archives. This is where I differ with Certif1ed, he's looking for a specific musical charecteristic that is shared by all prog bands, at least the early ones that created prog, and what he's found is something that only people with a good ear and a strong grounding in music theory can hear (useless to most of us, then).   Nice post! This statement you quoted ("Prog isn't a sound - it's a way of doing things") is true, but what about bands like Wobbler ... or The Flower Kings? Surely the music is prog. Now you may say "Wait a minute ... it only sounds like prog!". But what difference does it make to new listeners? If you play them the Wobbler album and Camel - Moonmadness and ask them which is "more proggy", I'm not sure what they would say. My point is that while it is very interesting to point out which recordings are "truly progressive" and which are merely copies/adaptations of those original pieces of music, both can be called "prog" ... the label includes both extremes. This is the very reason why prog is so hard to define, and why any "wholistic" attempt to define it is bound to fail.

Its why I like that statement, it can be applied in two ways, to mean that the band in question is trying to emulate the classics by doing things in a similar way, or its tacking the same mentality/approach as the classic bands but creating very different music. Completely agree with that second paragraphe.

As for comparing Hinterland and Moonmadness, I'd say Wobbler, but thats just me.

But what's the point Mike?

^ interesting idea - to list sub genres - but actually I would even try to be more precise and move to the album level.

GoldenSpiral wrote: The main problem I see in this list is that it now requires a definition of "Typical 'Prog' Music" I edited the original post ... thanks for the heads up!   I tend to like things in the B category, though we have things from all 4 here.  I don't really know what to make of it all.  I know you're a fan of quantifying things as much as possible, Mike, and I don't want to belittle your efforts.  However, I think "progressive" is a feeling and/or attitude and can only really be represented by a nebulous cloud, not a solid Venn diagram.

I actually don't want to quantify everything ... of course I'll implement the two criteria on my website (in fact I already did ), but they should be relatively fuzzy. These are the steps I use:

0%: Not
20%: Slightly
40%: Moderately
60%: Quite
80%: Very
100%: Extremely

I don't really think that's too specific. It also relates well to normal human language ... for example, someone could say "Spock's Beard are only moderately progressive, but their music sounds a lot like classic prog". You could argue about what "a lot" means, but I'd translate this into 40% progressive, 60% prog by style.

Of course people tend to think about quantizing as soon as percentages are used ... I'll probably have to find a way to avoid showing them directly.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 01 2008 at 10:09

ExittheLemming wrote: very interesting and well researched idea BUT A - If something 'sounded' like typical prog music, could it be deemed truly 'progressive' ? (Do you mean it may be similar to some earlier prog ? or do you mean it shares broadly agreed prog characteristics but ventures out into new territory ?)  i.e otherwise wouldn't it be tantamount to 'retro' bands in C ? Despite my infernal nitpicking, I think you may be on to a really good idea here

Yes - C in fact stands for retro/regressive bands ... or the typical expression "... clone". My point is that regardless of whether these bands are truly progressive or not, their music should still be called "Prog".