A Personal Definition of Prog

Not really what he was getting at though....

Svetonio wrote: I know for that high school "definition" of high-art but that "definition" is so terribly dated; e.g. Mozart is high - art, but Coltrane is not, Rubens' paintings are Fine Art but Patrick Woodroffe's (RIP) paintings are "ilustrations", etc. I'm not a conservative person and I don't buy it.

richardh wrote: moshkito wrote: richardh wrote: ... And again I wasn't saying that those bands were 'keyboard dominated'. Just some keyboards can have a much greater impact than a whole lot of guitar.   Although I think that the rock/jazz and most 20th century music will be defined by the recording and the electric guitar more than anything else. It seems to me that keyboards were given a much higher profile in prog than most other forms of music except maybe jazz. I would have though the guitar was more prominent in blues and 'straight ahead' rock music. This is I believe a discussion about prog is it not? I know you like to widen it out to the point where all lines are blurred but as Dean has pointed out countless times this is actually a prog site and not a general music discussion site.

I think you missed the point. To say that one era in music is distinctive strictly by one instrument, will not, move the "progressive" definition any further than the miriad of insanity that has already been created, when even a special effect creates a genre, when you could easily turn the electricity off and there is nothing there new!

I am simply thinking that the definition needs to be better than just an instrument, and "keyboards" is not a good representative at all! Like saying that guitar was not massive in "progressive"?

Edited by moshkito - June 17 2014 at 10:38

Dean wrote: ^ Funny, you seemed to be more than happy to credit a whole genre of music solely by the invention of the Synthesiser not so long ago.

All that is required of a contrarian is an excess of contrariness; anything remotely resembling consistency is a bonus.

As far as keyboards, synths, mellotrons, chamberlins, vocoders, etc., I think they were a specific component of the initial prog epoch, but not necessarily the main instrument.

Let's face it, if it's rock, the guitar is the primary vehicle; unless you are referring to the few bands that were keyboard predominant
like VdGG, ELP or even Uriah Heep. For the most part, keys set a palette, and imbue the background with pseudo-classical panache.

Yes, King Crimson, Tull, Floyd, Zeppelin, Deep Purple all had fine keyboardists, but it was the guitarists that dominated.

The definition of progressive music is not quite correct to what I seem to understand, progressive in any terms means growing going beyond from what previously available and what it ends up sounding like, both in terms of unpredictability and not conforming to the norm as in any music genre, a mix without rules as long as it sounds great to the ears, the mix, the complexity, while also adding and experimenting with ethnic instruments to classic and rock music etc. LOS JAIVAS in this case comes to mind.
However progressive music in this era I don’t think it’s a correct definition of what currently is available, in the 70’s yes that was an experimentation era, current new music I think it’s about great musicianship and imagination beyond rock but progressive as in definition it is not, i.e. the beatles were one of the first bands to add the sitar etc and the song helter skelter to me was the first metal song, both at the time progressive, this is my belief and opinion, however to date we have heard what bands add to rock songs incorporating i.e. Beethoven 7th symphony to the flute and bagpipes :)   
To me prog means taking you into another level, great musicianship, many layers, built ups, crescendos added most tiny soft touching awww memorable tunes. The complexity of great musicianship simplified to the listener, while taking you into a magical journey with so many layers, built ups and come downs, this to me is what it means, the wonderful experience it takes you xxxxx   

I recall that I objected to RichardH's characterization of Prog as keyboard dominated. I don't recall if it was earlier in this thread or in another thread. From the perspective of a guitar player it ruffled my feathers a bit. And quite seriously, I do think it is overestimated, but keyboards certainly occupied a larger slice of the pie in Prog than other genres, however large that may be. For me, a critical characteristic of Prog is experimentation with timbre. Guitars were at least the equal of keyboards to do odd things with timbre until synthesizers came along. They really gained an upper hand then.

Gerinski wrote: <span style="line-height: 1.2;"> HackettFan wrote: I recall that I objected to RichardH's characterization of Prog as keyboard dominated. I don't recall if it was earlier in this thread or in another thread. From the perspective of a guitar player it ruffled my feathers a bit. And quite seriously, I do think it is overestimated, but keyboards certainly occupied a larger slice of the pie in Prog than other genres, however large that may be. For me, a critical characteristic of Prog is experimentation with timbre. Guitars were at least the equal of keyboards to do odd things with timbre until synthesizers came along. They really gained an upper hand then. </span> <span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span> I guess that it's a bit of an "historical accident", guitars, basses, drums, flutes, saxes, horns, pianos, normal organs etc existed long before Prog, but the modern synthesizer was born in the mid-late 60's and got developed from then until the late 70's when digital technology started to take over, so the development of modern keyboards went very much in parallel with the development of Prog itself, creating a link between them which is now difficult to unravel. Would Prog have developed all the same if the synth was not developed? Would synths have developed all the same if Prog did not happen? A similar comment could be made about sound effects, from distortion to wah-wah to chorus to delays, they were developed in parallel with the development of Prog and they contributed to the new sound which Prog represented.

You know a lot about the history of synths. I've been on your blog. I don't recall hearing synths much in late 60s and even really early 70s material. Keith Emerson was earlier than most, but he was working with Moog prototypes directly as I understand it. How common were synths in '72 and prior? Especially for those with limited financial support from their record company.

Gerinski wrote: HackettFan wrote:   You know a lot about the history of synths. I've been on your blog. I don't recall hearing synths much in late 60s and even really early 70s material. Keith Emerson was earlier than most, but he was working with Moog prototypes directly as I understand it. How common were synths in '72 and prior? Especially for those with limited financial support from their record company. Thanks for the compliment, I do not know that much but I researched a bit. The Mellotron was not a synth but it introduced radically new possibilities for music performed by bands of a few members in the mid-late 1960's (possibilities which were until then reserved for big bands and orchestras). The VCS3 was released in 1969 and it provided also completely new sounds and effects possibilities. Just a bit later in 1970 the Minimoog came out and it became a paradigm for new sounds. The big synths such as the modular Moogs or the ARP2500 / 2600 were indeed not available to everyone, but they somehow shaped "the sound of the times". I do not claim that Prog happened because of the synth or the guitar sound effects, only that they went in parallel and provided some kind of "feedback loop", the possibility to make more complex sounds facilitated making more complex music.

Gerard, this may seem like a silly question, but the MOOG was invented to mimic orchestral sounds and the VSC3 for sound effects or am I wrong on this? Is it these two used together that gives early 70's Prog it's mostly destinctive but not quite identifiable sound?


Edited by SteveG - July 09 2014 at 19:12