Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38722
Posted: October 05 2010 at 15:00
Slartibartfast wrote:
crap
Like with other forms of music, a lot of Prog is crap to me -- Crap Prog and non-Crap Prog.
rushfan4 wrote:
For me, post rock seems to be the opposite of prog rock. For one it isn't really rock, and for two, it seems to be about fitting as few notes as possible into long songs, where prog rock tends to try and fit as many notes as possible. Well that sounds more like speed metal, but I am more referring to, the multi-instruments playing at the same time, with guitar, bass, keyboards, saxophones, violins, etc... whereas, post seems to be just a guitar holding notes or a violin holding notes. My post rock sampling is pretty small, but that is my impression of the genre. It just seems to be the opposite of what I listen to prog rock for.
What drew me to Progressive Rock had to do with an approach to thematic developments
(akin to art music), which I have found in Post-Rock. As for it not really being rock, I think it has more than enough in common with rock to not to be an opposite, and one thing I think important to progressive rock is that it progresses rock away from conventional rock. In a way I'm surprised that progresive rock hasn't progressed farther from its obvious rock roots commonly (evolved from rock sufficiently into barely recognisable forms of rock based music)
Still, when I first read
this topic I was thinking about writing Minimalism, but there are minimalist
composers that I associate with progressive rock.
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
Posted: October 05 2010 at 15:19
There's no opposite of Prog Rock, since Prog Rock can encompass anything.
Prog can be complex, but also totally minimalistic.
Virtually any genre can be associated with prog? SexPistols and punk? They changed the face of music forever. Eurythmics? They revolutionized a fusion between soul and cold synthetic sequences.
The thing most remote from prog is some radiophonic, pop-appealing music that is comfortably nested in the middle of the well-accepted subgenre.
I would say INXS. That doesn't mean they're a bad band, quite the contrary.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: October 05 2010 at 16:17
Prog, pop, and punk are all very closely related in sound, if not ethos. In terms of how prog is defined by the big 5, new age and smooth jazz are much further apart.
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38722
Posted: October 05 2010 at 16:50
Classical and jazz are two of the biggest influences on progressive rock (hybridisation) and many in PA have adapted it, or composed their own Western Academic/Art music. For an excellent example of progressive rock meets classical style, try William Sheller's Lux Aeterna.
Then there are band such as Aranis which are considered Rock in Opposition even if they aren't really rock. Furthermore, a lot of classical music is popular.
Edited by Logan - October 05 2010 at 16:50
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8138
Posted: October 05 2010 at 17:03
^
are you trying to convince me that prog rock is not rock music ? Why do most of the prog bands release pop/rock albums past the seventies ?
It's clear that progsters are people who must be frustrated not to record symphonies or concertos with classical instrumentation, instead they borrow from classical music in order to show that their music is a bit superior than the average rock music. The result is sometimes successful (cf The Enid), but can also be disastrous (cf ELP's pictures at an exhibition). But it remains nonetheless rock music.
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38722
Posted: October 05 2010 at 17:15
^ Erm, no I'm not.
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
I don't think this makes any sense without defining precisely what you mean by 'pop' and 'prog'.
Although most pop is crap, there is still room for invention and innovation in a 'poppy' context. Conversely, just because the label 'prog' can be attached to something does not automatically imply it is superior in any sense. It means that it conforms to a particular style but it could still be a turgid, uninspired piece of music.
I don't find one superior to the other at all. The question that the OP asked is which "genre" is the opposite. The word pop simply means popular but if you look at pop music there are certain traits that bands fall into. Prog has it's own traits associated with it as well. The easiest explanation is one's tendency to be refined and the other's grandiosity. Really most bands that are prog get pigeonholed the same way pop music does. This is why the majority (perhaps) of prog bands aren't truly "progressive", if you know what I mean. To me progressive means there are no boundaries or lines that can't be crossed. A truly "progressive" band can play pop or prog music depending on whatever the song calls for. They're not confined to drawn out structures and virtuosic level of musicianship for every song that the genre is known for.
Joined: April 02 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 202
Posted: October 05 2010 at 18:33
TheClosing wrote:
I don't find one superior to the other at all. The question that the OP asked is which "genre" is the opposite. The word pop simply means popular but if you look at pop music there are certain traits that bands fall into. Prog has it's own traits associated with it as well. The easiest explanation is one's tendency to be refined and the other's grandiosity. Really most bands that are prog get pigeonholed the same way pop music does. This is why the majority (perhaps) of prog bands aren't truly "progressive", if you know what I mean. To me progressive means there are no boundaries or lines that can't be crossed. A truly "progressive" band can play pop or prog music depending on whatever the song calls for. They're not confined to drawn out structures and virtuosic level of musicianship for every song that the genre is known for.
OK - my apologies for misinterpreting your comment. Having said that, although I think I see what you are saying here, I'm still not sure I follow your argument in terms of how it addresses the OPs question.
Hmm.. I'm thinking that the question doesn't really make a lot of sense if we are going to be honest about it. It's probably possible to make some argument for anything as the concept of what a genre means is so subjective.
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
Posted: October 05 2010 at 19:28
lucas wrote:
J-Man wrote:
lucas wrote:
prog is rock music / popular music, so I guess it has to be classical music ?
It's the other way around. Most prog is rock music / classic music, and not pop. Progressive rock was built off a lack of commercial approach.
weren't Genesis, KC, ELP and Yes "commercial" during the golden Age of prog rock ? They sold a lot of albums back in those days.
Sorry to disappoint you, but a lot of non-prog artists began to record prog music in the seventies because it sold very well back in those days.
And yes, it belongs to "popular music", as opposed to classical music. It's rock music after all.
Genesis, King Crimson, and Yes may have sold well in the 70's, but calling them pop is an enormous stretch. Their 80's output could fit that label though... Just because music is rock doesn't mean it's automatically pop. They're two distinctly different genres.
Joined: January 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1601
Posted: October 05 2010 at 20:55
I'm just going to go with pop music. I hate all pop music, but I'm talking REALLY poppy music here. The music is made for nothing but making money and being catchy, with little to no real value. Whereas really progressive music isn't concerned with how successful it is, how well you remember the chorus (if it exists), and is deeply intricate and musically complex.
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: October 05 2010 at 22:56
himtroy wrote:
I'm just going to go with pop music. I hate all pop music, but I'm talking REALLY poppy music here. The music is made for nothing but making money and being catchy, with little to no real value. Whereas really progressive music isn't concerned with how successful it is, how well you remember the chorus (if it exists), and is deeply intricate and musically complex.
Prog is a form of pop music, so no. Prog has a lot more similarities with even the poppiest music ever than with new age or smooth jazz or Chinese folk music.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
What Music Genre is the opposite of Prog Rock?
Topic Options
Slartibartfast wrote:
It's the other way around. Most prog is rock music / classic music, and not pop. Progressive rock was built off a lack of commercial approach.
