Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?

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.

*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category.  I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so. 

Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol

Smurph wrote: Zravkapt... you must have never heard... Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc... I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.

How is what any of those groups do different from what other groups were doing 20-30 years ago? Koenjihyakkei is the Japanese Magma for crying out loud...how original can you be when you are compared to another group? The question could be pointed back: how familiar are you with music that came out between 1969-1999? I listen to lots of modern music and because I do I am aware of how little innovation has taken place. 'Original' does not equal good and just because a band is current does not mean they are doing anything that someone else hasn't already done before.

dr prog wrote: Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol

And all of them that formed before 1980. rfolofofollofloffaho.

maybe its just progressive (means stylistically unfixed) music with a heavy disposition to the rock genre.
if you then say its regressive, you can only mean that the progressive element, to build in new styles (which includes playing methods, instruments, genres) is less processed then in relation to another time (like the 70s).

As you have some subgenres of prog these days, the progressive element is of course not everywhere at maximum.
In some subgenres the progressive elements are pretty fixed to special methods.
And in every subgenre you have different types of progression.
The one progresses not much, hes only part of the genre that once was progressive but is pretty fixed now 8because its no new fusion or progress of styles), another progresses with the playing (so he plays symphonic rock but hes still progressive as he is doing a lots of creativity/progress/recombining in playing methods and instruments) and another one is progressive in more then one way (using a lots of different instruments and genres and so on).

math rock is a good example.
it is extremely progressive in terms of playing, but pretty unprogressive in terms of genre adaption.

but mostly in every genre and subgenre, you have somebody that breaks the principle, the grade of fixation, the actual balance of the system and reforming parts of it.

As long as the people are unclear of what prog rock/prog music is, it will be a hard argumentation as mostly everybody is talking about a different source. so it would be good if there would be a summation of the possible perspectives.


but one thing is clear, prog music lovers will not come to the perpective that prog music is regressing, this is just not possible because you have to be progressive to be a prog musician.

For fans of the prog rock, its not as easy to say this, because first of all it is historical dependent on definition and second because rock is kind of dated more and more.
There is a heavy problem to define many bands these days and so we call em all post-rock bands. just because they use e-guitar, drums and bass and are not playing in terms of Elvis, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.

back then, some things were progressive, but today, they are just old and 70s, today its just pure symphonic-rock and it was there many times and it isnt progressive any more due to an universal art/prog definition.
so there is a partial regression, specially in using different genres and in using instruments in some subgenres that came out of the new experimental/fusion/art/prog genre in the 70s.

Back then you were open in definition and you had to be extremely experimental and fusing in your approach.
Today, many just reproduce the FUSED structure from back then.
Thats why it is called retro-prog.

And why is retro-prog still prog?
because they are partially oepn in some elements.
Even if it is just the playing of their instruments.

And so, for some or even for many, this is not really prog, because it is extremely reproductive in many ways.
But it stil lcan be prog msuic if you classify it as a simple term of symphonic-folk-electric-experimental-rock.
but you have to be very exact here when it come to the percentual definition ;)

Smurph wrote: There are only so many modes and keys. And they had all been explored by the time the 20th century rolled around. All we did as humans was add different percussion and textures.

Oh yeah Darryl Love me some Cabezas de Cera. I've heard snippets off of their newest Hermandad and it sounds amazing to these ears, but right now I'm too broke to go buy new records. Verdammt!

:)
no i dont want to say that. Im with you and can second your post s many others here.
i just fused my two posts and im very satisfied :D
hope you like it, here it comes:


Now i got it :D

if we say, prog rock is rock music with progressive elements, then we have to ask what exactly is progressive.

What elements used in music can be described as progressive?

One idea could be, that the progressive element can be restricted somehow.

To the „kind“ of music that were played by some bands back in the 70s.

So for coincidence a rock with some kind of experimental symphonic folk jazz electro influences.

No matter what you say now, it is some kind of that music and if it doesnt sound like one of the glorious prog gods from back then or isnt listed by the official prog publishes and social communitys, it is no prog.

Another idea of PROG ROCK or just PROG could be that

the additional composing and playing form is free and wanted

the additional song structure is free and wanted

the additional use of genres is free and wanted

the use of additional instruments is free and wanted

an additional unrepititive and free use of all musical elements is wanted

so we are not talking about EXPERIMENTAL and AVANT music, we are talking about an exclusive and enhanced (fusioned/recombined and maybe experimental) form of ROCK. RIO could be very similar to PROG but it differs in the exclusion of (NORMAL) ROCK structures in general where PROG could be open to that.

So now we have our definition, we can ask if modern prog rock isnt that or absolutely not progressive.

Rock in itself develops. So if we look at the rock in general, we can easily say it is progressive i think. You have massive rock bands that use any of the things we use to define prog rock.

They are not repititive, they use other instruments and genres and so on. You have all kinds of rock crossover acts, bands that fuses other genres and at the same time are being very progressive in their composing. And it goes and and on. There are coming more and more doing a lot of crazy things, you just have to explore - you will find everything you cant imagine. There are so many bands out there, you cant listen to all of them in your whole life. There is still repitition, but there is also a lot of development and the usual rock listener is already searching a lot for new and creative bands and they find them. They maybe dont know that this is progressive, but it is.

Best example are all the young people that listen to prog metal, and new rock like Muse, Mars Volta, Radiohead etc. This is prog rock.

If we look to those rock subgenres, that we list in Prog Archives, we can also say that all elements are still there but how much - and is this list representative of what we think is prog rock or prog music today and for all?

a) Are some bands who fulfill some kind of prog definition also very repititive in some other way?

b) How much can we progress the prog rock as a style? Can and do we (the doers and consumers) progress it?

a) can be very relative. As the progressivity also depends on the musicians and listeners background. But specially with the help of the subgenre of retro-rock we can say, that some elements of prog rock are not that fulfilled by some bands which we call progressive.

Not because they are technically bad musicians, its because the stuff they play isnt new to many others. Its complex, it combines different genres, but it is still a repititon of something that was already there. And it makes it not better if they are bad musicians.

But somehow, i would say they are still progressive, but maybe not that much then a band that is just labeled as a post-rock or indie band. And in relation to all possibilitys of music and all the elements you can use today and back then, they are also not that progressive maybe. But to answer this question precisely, you have to know how much bands there were back then and how much usage they made of the freedom they had back then.

But so it is extremely important to understand i think, that the definition of prog rock is „common rock definition“ today, or should we say, part or the problem of defining rock and mainstream music in general. And so there are bands outside the common prog rock genres, that are very progressive and maybe rock too and who are somehow, in relation to the expectation and musical consciousness of the listener, much more progressive then a symphonic rock band.

That brings us also to b)

and you should answer that for yourself!

:)

i just want to remember

“It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it.“

Keith Emerson

Its more an attitude then a stringent style as Robert Fripp would say.

omhomunculus :) now im gonna chill to death!

oh btw if you still dont got me,
i think prog rock is still progressive, but i also think, that the rest of the rock and all other genres are minimum equally progressive. And that should be PROG music.
But hey, now we have PROG FUSION, maybe we will get some FREE PROG FUSION ;)




Edited by wowie - September 15 2013 at 11:39

wowie wrote: :) no i dont want to say that. Im with you and can second your post s many others here. i just fused my two posts and im very satified :D hope you like it, here it comes: Now i got it :D if we say, prog rock is rock music with progressive elements, then we have to ask what exactly is progressive. What elements used in music can be described as progressive? One idea could be, that the progressive element can be restricted somehow. To the „kind“ of music that were played by some bands back in the 70s. So for coincidence a rock with some kind of experimental symphonic folk jazz electro influences. No matter what you say now, it is some kind of that music and if it doesnt sound like one of the glorious prog gods from back then or isnt listed by the official prog publishes and social communitys, it is no prog. Another idea or PROG ROCK could be that the additional composing and playing form is free and wanted the additional song structure is free and wanted the additional use of genres is free and wanted the use of additional instruments is free and wanted an additional unrepititive and free use of all musical elements is wanted so we are not talking about EXPERIMENTAL and AVANT music, we are talking about an exclusive and enhanced (fusioned/recombined and maybe experimental) form of ROCK. RIO could be very similar to PROG but it differs in the exclusion of (NORMAL) ROCK structures in general where PROG could be open to that. So now we have our definition, we can ask if modern prog rock isnt that or absolutely not progressive. Rock in itself develops. So if we look at the rock in general, we can easily say it is progressive i think. You have massive rock bands that use any of the things we use to define prog rock. They are not repititive, they use other instruments and genres and so on. You have all kinds of rock crossover acts, bands that fuses other genres and at the same time are being very progressive in their composing. And it goes and and on. There are coming more and more doing a lot of crazy things, you just have to explore - you will find everything you cant imagine. There are so many bands out there, you cant listen to all of them in your whole life. There is still repitition, but there is also a lot of development and the usual rock listener is already searching a lot for new and creative bands and they find them. They maybe dont know that this is progressive, but it is. Best example are all the young people that listen to prog metal, and new rock like Muse, Mars Volta, Radiohead etc. This is prog rock. If we look to those rock subgenres, that we list in Prog Archives, we can also say that all elements are still there but how much - and is this list representative of what we think is prog rock or prog music today and for all? a) Are some bands who fulfill some kind of prog definition also very repititive in some other way? b) How much can we progress the prog rock as a style? Can and do we (the doers and consumers) progress it? a) can be very relative. As the progressivity also depends on the musicians and listeners background. But specially with the help of the subgenre of retro-rock we can say, that some elements of prog rock are not that fulfilled by some bands which we call progressive. Not because they are technically bad musicians, its because the stuff they play isnt new to many others. Its complex, it combines different genres, but it is still a repititon of something that was already there. And it makes it not better if they are bad musicians. But somehow, i would say they are still progressive, but maybe not that much then a band that is just labeled as a post-rock or indie band. And in relation to all possibilitys of music and all the elements you can use today and back then, they are also not that progressive maybe. But to answer this question precisely, you have to know how much bands there were back then and how much usage they made of the freedom they had back then. But so it is extremely important to understand i think, that the definition of prog rock is „common rock definition“ today, or should we say, part or the problem of defining rock and mainstream music in general. That brings us also to b) and you should answer that for yourself! :) i just want to remember “It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it.“ Keith Emerson Its more an attitude then a stringent style as Robert Fripp would say. omhomunculus :) now im gonna chill to death! oh btw if you still dont got me, i think prog rock is still progressive, but i also think, that the rest of the rock and all other genres are minimum equally progressive.