Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?

this theme is really discussed a lot but i love it, as it really is a progressive and hi-end talk about culture & philosophy in general and music.

as this is quite complex theme, there is every time a new combination of wise things and gives more structure and consciousness to it .... please excuse my formulation, its quite early here in GER ;) and i havent eat sth so far ...

many interesting stuff said here, specially POLYMORPHIA and KAZZA3.

we shouldnt miss the PARTIAL factor here.
a system can have partial skills, so it CAN fall into more then on category of definition.
so many things are progressive, all kinds of musical styles, playing, thinking, sex and so on - its a sort of behavior.

and then there is this PROG genre. that defined in the 70s due to the classic "inventors".
the genre definitely contains the expectation to be progressive in your behavior.
still it does not say how much!
and so, if other genre bands are being progressive, it is absolutely possible, that they are more progressive then a band coming from the PROG genre.

as for the 70s the prog genre summed up with the actual ruling cultural dispositions of the inventors and the rest environment.
mostly rock, jazz, symphonic, folk and electronic.
as there are bands that focus on just a few of those fields, you get divided in your categorization.
such terms as experimental, avant, art, rio and also fusion are pretty much similar to the prog genre. its just another arrangement of preferred elements.
specially fusion, as fusion usually is about fusing everything (such as world music) and not just limited to jazz-rock.

so prog and fusion and also the other stuff is partially fixed as many systems and not all elements behave that proggy (creative, experimental, avant, fresh, new, fusing, crossover,artsy ... )
 
still there is progression in the prog genre, and at some points even hi-end.
but that is mostly at those points, where artist want to REFORM, develop the PROG genre in itself. outside the mainstream. so mostly they dont call themselves just prog artists.
they call it rock/electro/folk, they call it prog-fusion, prog-jazz, progressive blues,
call it chamber folk/rock/rio, they call it indie, they call it ambient/folk/avant/symphonic ....
there is so many progressive stuff out there.

so i have no problem to expand the borders of the prog genre and behave much more progressive here. in the end it is not really much saying to be a prog artists, just that you should be very creative in what you do and maybe have an eclectic/universal view of the things so to fulfill the expectation of being progressive/creative with all possibilitys you have.

so when it comes to the question which bands we add to the progarchives db, which categorys must be fullfilled?
the genre gets more and more in the background, as the mix of the genres is more important and also the mix of skills you use on your album.
but yes i guess there is a little focus and prioritization to rock, symphonic and audipophile/experimental stuff. Where the last one is the most important for me.
the audiophile element is important as it allows you, it motivates you to use all stuff there is, You are even hot on exploring the new sounds. as this is necessary to be free in what you do and being progressive.

experimental, avant, art and fusion are more open or should i say, focused on the skill to expand your possibilitys. maybe not that rock oriented like prog. but thats just a historical and no present point.
but due to history, the category symphonic rock is kind of the mainstream of prog genre, as other stufff is the mainstream of other genres. Why, well most people can only play rock instruments .... and, yes, keyboards
... anything more to say :D
for mans sake there are many artists who are not mainstream and so we have much more things in the prog genre then what many think is the prog genre. just look at the categorys of the PRdb. Look at the bands getting recommended.
A lot of jazz, chamber, electronic, worldmusic, triphop, DnB, indie and more and more pop music.
They are so proggy, that the mix of genres is quite balanced and even a majority of rock, jazz and symphonic and electronic - i just say INDIE!

of course its sad as some see that all this proggy stuff, the freedom of doing music, isnt integrated THAT MUCH, so only partial in the mainstream category of symphonic rock.
but thats just the rules of mainstream and thats also why Jethro Tull will not sound like King Crimson.

back then and today we can be happy that progression is part of the zeitgeist. Its hip and so its kind of popular. And it is today, its even extreme and everywhere, all genres and artists getting more and more progressive and eclectic in there behavior.
its ridiculous not to use all the stuff that is out there.
But of course you have to learn it and you must getting part of the more proggy culture.

So the alternative culture, the proggy culture is getting bigger and bigger, but still the mainstream is playing save. So in the next 40 years, there still will be pretty unproggy bands in the prog genre, as in all other life fields too, i guess not that much like you are in a bible group or something like that. ;)

i just love prog as i love mankind and revolution
its all one isnt it ;)


Edited by wowie - September 08 2013 at 03:02

^Sorry, Toddler, it was a nice, long post but I miss you point entirely.  

Epignosis wrote: I have never thought of progressive rock as being a category that "pushed boundaries."  Certainly, artists we regard as progressive rock did that, but I don't think that's what it means.   How do you define pushed boundaries? Progressive rock is rock music that progresses.  In other words, it does not maintain the same scheme or pattern throughout its structure.  It is music that visits other passages beyond the common structures  This often involves time signature, tempo, or instrument changes in a given piece.  That is why "Awaken" is a progressive rock song and "Telegraph Road" is not.   Okay, this interests me and I feel that visiting these other passages beyond the common structures is locating what could be explained as the beyond. Beyond..as in traveling or progressing beyond what is typically known as the surface of music. Not in any sense are the basics of music limited. "Strawberry Fields Forever" is basic in it's musical form, but artistic in nature/character due to it's coloring. The coloring is what's basically added to the simple structure..like painting and so forth. ..or I often think of it that way. Ideas were added either during the writing/recording process or after the basis of the song had been completed. Either way, it is progressive in nature. It is an act of being progressive just taking those steps alone. This includes how the ideas create an atmosphere musically and even a visual to the listener. "Awaken" at one particular point has a very soothing instrumental section. A ghostly haunting melodic church organ almost fading in and out at times combined with something that sounds like distant chimes. Even though this particular section of "Awaken" doesn't feature a complex time signature with Howe and Squire gymnastics, it is still of a progressive nature because it is colored and presents a personal visual for the listener's choice. Pink Floyd mastered this approach upon using ideas and some of their music is like watching a film.   I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.

silverpot wrote: zravkapt wrote: The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant. This made me think a bit about innovation and what that actually is. I came to the conclusion that technology is the single most important part in progression. ...

^ not acceptable

irrelevant wrote: ^ What is the first prog album?

It'll be released in a few years, after the band who'll record it meet each other and start a band together.

Guldbamsen wrote: All that I wanted to say has been pretty well covered already. From ca 1976 and onwards, the rock that was progressive was not to be found in prog (the genre). Punk, post-punk and the avantguarde rock was where it was at. Nowadays I hear most new and refreshing sounds in the electronic lands, and perhaps that is not so odd after all.  I'm very much looking forward to hear what the future brings. If we want music to progress and give us something new and exciting, it all comes down to our willingness to embrace it - just like our parents and grandparents did oh so long ago. Imagine purchasing Amon Düül ll's Yeti after only having listened to stuff like The Beatles and The Stones. The idea of progressive music - be that in rock or outside of it relies just as much on the audiences, as it does on the artists themselves. We can't expect new progressive pathways opening up, if we never give them the benefit of a doubt - jump outside of our listening habits and go for something out of the ordinary. And no the prog of today is not progressive, but then again it doesn't have to be does it? Can't an album just be good?

It can be good and if your preference has more to do with the album being good, then of course this point you make is surely justified in the logic of liking something overall and not having a concern over it's somewhat catagorization ..which in this case is being progressive. Ideas to develop originality of sound and style originate from experimentation, certain formulas ARE or WERE (in the 70's), applied, concepts within the lyrical approach, and following rules or steps that often reject the input of band members who insist that their new "hook" is original ..when in fact it obviously is not. I am not completely convinced that a majority of musicians today are speaking up at rehearsal and sticking to those rules. Andrew Latimer does on a video of Camel rehearsing...where he stops the keyboardist to point out that what he is playing is a Pink Floyd signature riff and to NOT add it to the song. Tony Banks refused to allow the influence of King Crimson in Genesis...and although that influence may be present at times, it didn't control or dominate the overall structure of the Lamb or S.E.B.T.P.

TheGazzardian wrote: Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations. When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain. Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.

The.Crimson.King wrote: Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock"

cstack3 wrote: I don't see the same level of "sonic experimentation" going on with modern prog bands as we did in the 1970's.   John McLaughlin put the double-neck electric guitar to great effect, electric violin appeared in Mahavishnu Orchestra, King Crimson and other bands, Steve Howe brought the pedal-steel guitar, electric sitar and other strange instruments to the stage, and keyboardists like Wakeman and Hawkens gleefully mixed synth with harpsichord, Mellotron with ancient pipe organ etc.   Prog seems to be very much a formula these days - electric bass, drums, electric & acoustic guitars, and a modicum of electronic keys, usually patched to emulate the acoustic instruments.   What it needs is a good, dynamic kick in the arse!  Any ideas?   I'd enjoy seeing more women in prog, musical influences besides European classical and American blues/jazz idioms, and some fresh instrumentation.

Yeah, I'd definitely like to hear some more new sonic textures myself. I mean, with all the new technology nowadays, why on earth do so many groups keep looking backwards? It makes no sense to me.

The only group that comes to mind that I've heard incorporate more modern sounds into their mix is Riverside, and even then I still feel like they're only scratching the surface. The ultra-modern synth sounds on Anno Domini High Definition were truly astounding to me, and I want to hear more of that. Like now! They didn't exploit that nearly as much on SONGS, but I'm inclined to give them a pass as they did a respectable job of balancing the retro sounds with more modern components.

Edited by Neo-Romantic - September 07 2013 at 00:51