Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog

About progressive music and progressive rock.

I realize they have different meanings and that one can utilize this semantic difference in distinguishing between progressive rock and progressive music. The thing is, the way I see it, that this dependency relation that is presumed to hold between word meaning and a music category doesn't actually hold. When I was working in radio, a digital recording device was always named a "tape recorder" even though tapes haven't been used for years. It is just what they are called. I introduce 'prog' as a somewhat arbitrary category-label. It's not a word that means something and thus it's not a term that combines 'progressive music' and 'progressive rock' in any sense where word meaning and category-status are in a one-to-one dependency relation.

More on prog as a radial category.

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"

This is essentially true and my fundamental conviction. For me, 'prog' only has conceptual status and to accept it as a radial category challenges very much any assumption that words somehow can describe music. Radial categories are mind-internal, they are not descriptions or reflections of an objective 'out there in the world' status of a category. They inform of how the mind structures categories and information about the categories themselves is secondary and depends solely on how the mind forms and structures categories. I proposed prog as a radial category where instances of music are centered around a prototype as more or less central or peripheral. Of course, many people haven't any prototypical understanding of prog. When we as experiencers get subjected to an instance of music, e.g. the album "Tales from topographic oceans", we (many of us) ask ourselves questions like "what kind of music is this?". Prog has category status in my mind, and I would, just like Al, judge Tales from topographic oceans a very good example of prog. Many have no idea of prog and would perhaps categorize Tales relative to a rock domain as an album which isn't a very good example prototypical rock, like Bob. These are equally 'correct' classifications spawned by different conceptual systems. Figure three captures this point.

What seems to be the issue then, is to introduce prog as a category into the mind of people by means of a definition that in general terms captures what prog typically is. This category-introduction, I think, is done best by providing examples more than using words. I got to know about prog by listening to records that generally were judged good examples of prog, not by reading any definition.

Note, radial categories are structured with respects to more than a central/peripheral scale. They are also structured according to a notion of chaining which captures how central members are linked to other members and so on.

On definition

I'm not really interested in defining prog and I turn (here and in my last post) exclusively to theoretical issues of categorization which I find very important in reaching, not so much a definition, but rather an understanding of the cognitive status of categories which ideally should play a role in a definition - even though I judge it rather difficult. All things considered, it's a matter of a lot of things - including points of views. As stated earlier in this discussion, I recognize certain benefits of a (kind-of) taxonomic approach, most importantly the functionality and usability of seemingly fixed categories where members share properties and are categorized and sub-categorized accordingly. It's rational - and in western thinking it's an ancient and a deeply ingrained way of making sense of experience - though not cognitively adequate, and thus, I'd maintain, somewhat delusional.

Final words

Figure 4 captures in an intended humorous and exaggerated way, how I perceive our different outlooks which has spawned this quite interesting discussion. I can't spend more time on figures and explicating theoretical points of view. I'm currently working on a paper in linguistics which has to be finished shortly, so I'll retreat from this thread. Thank you for an interesting discussion!

And yet the name of this thread is "seeking a more elegant definition for prog" - which explains a lot. We indeed are working toward different ends.  From the beginning, my stated goal has been to create a functional dictionary styled definition which would: a) be far less complicated than most encyclopedia styled approaches and b) thus be useful for communicating quickly with a very wide audience.

I actually think radial categorization is an interesting and promising approach to usage of the term you call "prog", and one which warrants a separate post of its own. I certainly hope I have not "come across" fundamentally opposed to such an approach.  My point is that I don't believe it nullifies the usefulness of a more traditional western approach to creating "dictionary styled" definitions.

The dictionary has multiple definitions for words. None of them includes every possible valid use of the term in question. For example, most dictionaries' primary definition for the word mother will focus on the concept of "a female parent". This definition does not cover 100% of the usage for the word. Dictionaries will then proceed to give another 4 to 9 definitions for additional usage. Even the combined efforts of those definitions will not cover 100% of the valid usages for the word "mother". A radial approach can be very useful for decsribing how language moves, breathes and evolves in usage.

Even so, the first few dictionary definitions of the word "mother" serve a valid purpose. They are generally straightforward and informative to a wide audience. It is precisely this type of definition for progressive rock which I am seeking to create.

<As stated earlier in this discussion, I recognize certain benefits of a (kind-of) taxonomic approach, most importantly the functionality and usability of seemingly fixed categories where members share properties and are categorized and sub-categorized accordingly. It's rational - and in western thinking it's an ancient and a deeply ingrained way of making sense of experience>

<though not cognitively adequate, and thus, I'd maintain, somewhat delusional.>

I admit to off-topicness and partial irrelevancy by not wanting to address the issue of the definition as such but rather circling around in theoretical spheres. You asked a concrete question that I somehow overlooked and would like to answer.

Do you think there is very much music generally considered to be "progressive rock" that does not fit within the constraints of the definition I've provided? If so, please share examples. Progressive Rock: Music either springing from or incorporating one or more distinctive characteristics of the rock genre while expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the

It's difficult for me to accept the phrase “Music springing from or incorporating one or more distinctive characteristics of the rock genre” Which directs attention to a minimum of at least one characteristic of rock that instances of prog have to share. What about purely acoustic music springing from a folk domain rather than a rock domain and which accordingly is more likely to be conceptualized relative to a folk domain? e.g. 'The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter' by the Incredible String Band? I have a hard time pointing at the required characteristic of rock. It's classified as prog-folk on this site (members include Jethro Tull). The term (and the logic of PA organization) suggests a place in both a prog taxonomy (where rock is a mother-node) and a place in a folk taxonomy (where rock isn't necessarily a characteristic). This is highly inadequate and unnecessarily complicated.

In accordance with my conceptualist outlook I suggest classification relative to the radially structured categories (or, more loosely, domains) diagrammed in the circles. This approach accounts for the huge difference between Incredible String Band and Jethro Tull which the taxonomic approach fails to do. (Note, the diagram is partial and does not suggest that the domains represented are the only domains that play a role in the classification/conceptualization and the positions and interactions are not fixed)