Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?

 

Being so called ..progressive on your instrument is not limited to 1 style only. It doesn't go without saying and not all of the time because some of the most amazing progressive sax solos are found in Pop songs. The reason being that musicians , if experienced and devoted..can add progressive playing to almost any style of music except Classical which is always encouraged to follow the transcribed manuscript out of respect and remorse to the composers. That being the most logical reason for reflections of Classical music being merely incorporated to a Rock music structure within the sound itself and that becoming what is defined as progressive in rock.

 

Regarding King Crimson...many of the musicians (not just Fripp), were students/followers of Classical and Jazz music. The combinations of everyone's style of playing/approach was scattered and when cemented as a unit sometimes charted a different type of innovative sound. Bruford was actually a kind of Classical drummer who was interested in playing Jazz. That added a unique sound to the band. Bands in the present ..not pushing boundaries may have to do with the lack of interest in just letting go of themselves in the studio. Maybe they DO cling to formulas/ideas of the past and dismiss experimentation. I'm not totally sure. Some musicians express a refusal to repeat or even listen to innovators of the past. This doesn't work either, but some musicians are under the impression that it does. You might get the impression they are repeating what other's did in the 70's , while in fact what musician's were doing in the 70's was about a concept of moving foward.

 

The well known prog bands like YES, Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and ELP were very diverse from each other. Why would that be? Why would that reality be so easy to exist?  They had devoted long hours to it, but were confident about the outcome of sounding original. The reason being that they knew what path to follow and that didn't take them on a musical course which led to sounding like another band. If they based one of their prog albums around a period piece, the music would be condensed for a 5 or 3 piece band..which meant lots of rehearsal time in making it sound full. Sometimes even adding an orchestra for good measure. If not, there would be sections of elements in sound that derived from the 60's such as feedback from an organ (instead of Hendrix guitar) or a signature line in a Camel song that was based around a pentatonic scale. Such as one which you may have heard only briefly in a Jefferson Airplane song , yet cleaned up a bit and more pronounced. It's all about past elements contributing to new ones that evolve from being inspired. If that's not happening today, then that would be the reason why you personally do not hear anything very creative.

Yes, that is my opinion too. Progressive rock is a strange name. Progressing to where? More complex? More hypnotic? More grandiose? Experimental rock would maybe have been a better name.

This discussion is not progressing...

AL: It's hard to have a prog context at hand, when you write a song on your own, anyway... 

JW: Yes, exactly so. Prog stuff tends to happen in the rehearsal room. You get a drummer and a keyboard player involved, and they start extemporising on themes. I mean, I think that prog probably came about somewhere where American jazz and blues hit European classical music. I think that's how prog was born. The father was European classical music, and the mother was American blues, and the offspring was something we call progressive music. I don't think as a generic term it works anymore. Because it's not progressive, in fact it's more regressive. 

AL: It promised too much, I think... 

JW: It promised too much, yeah. And also, now it's back to everyone... Everyone who wants to be progressive, in inverted comas, want to use mellotrons, Marshall amps and Rickenbacker basses, you know, it's all back to 1973, which is hardly progressive. So it's very much regressive. But it seems that progressive has become a generic term for a style of music which involves time changes, classical moods... 

AL: Sophisticated rock, in a way... 

JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned.

JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned.

 

Yes...which is why he's been playing the same music, KC , Asia, Uk,  for the last 40 years or so and hasn't 'changed' either.

 

 

Compared to what came before in the world of rock, the early 70's prog bands were a literal "progression", but once the style was defined and bands began playing "in that style" it no longer progressed.  I don't think this is a bad thing as the style that defined "progressive" allows so much creativity within it that bands can spend years exploring all the nuances of the genre and never repeat themselves.  For me "progressive rock" isn't a literal direction of what the music should do, it's simply a description of what the music sounds like.