Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

As this matter has surfaced in the "Why so few American prog bands?" thread, I shall start a new thread for it here.

There is some controversy about what is prog and what is not.  Progressive rock, as I understand it, is a particular stream of tradition within rock music that started in late 1960s England, and is characterized by:

1. Musical complexity, often but not always manifesting in long, multi-part pieces which are more composed than improvised, often but not always using form models from the "classical" music tradition such as the fugue, the rondo or the sonata form.  This is the first dimension of "progressive": Progressive rock is musically progressive.

2. Ample use of electric and electronic keyboard instruments, such as Hammond organ, Mellotron and various types of synthesizers.  Also, use of state-of-the-art studio and stage technology (or when it is not used, there is an idea behind that, such as evoking images of unspoilt nature by means of unadulterated acoustic instruments or a cappella singing).  This is the second dimension of "progressive": Progressive rock is technologically progressive.

3. Sophisticated lyrics about a wide range of topics, including fantasy and science fiction, and often involving progressive ("leftist") social commentary.  This is the third dimension of "progressive"; Progressive rock is culturally progressive.

Now, there is controversy about the boundaries.  There is a lot of music that is often considered "prog", though they do not stand in the tradition of late 60s English classical progressive rock, and often lack one, two or all three of the characteristic properties of progressive rock I have listed above.  There is, for instance, disagreement about when Pink Floyd were a prog band and when they were not, and whether artists such as Zappa, Cpt. Beefheart, the Grateful Dead or even the Velvet Underground can be considered prog bands.

Today, the alternative music press (at least here in Germany, I don't know about other countries) often features and reviews "prog rock" of which I just don't see what it has to do with classical prog, and how it shows the characteristics of prog.  Examples of this kind of "prog rock" include Tool, Oceansize and similar bands.

I also don't think that "progressive" extreme metal is prog, as it often reduces the notion of musical complexity to show-offy instrumental acrobatics, and the cultural progressivity is absent - it basically shares the negative, cynical to reactionary ideology of extreme metal in general.

One could speak of progressive rock in a narrower and in a wider sense.  I tend to use the term "progressive rock" in the narrower sense, using something like "experimental rock" or "advanced rock" for the wider category.  One could do otherwise, though.  I once read a scholarly thesis by a German student, Andreas Hinners, how used "progressive rock" in the "wide" sense, and referred to what I called here "narrow sense", "art rock", distinguishing it from "jazz rock" and "avant-garde rock" as other kinds of "progressive rock".

And of course, the boundaries are always blurry.

What do you think?

I hope it's OK if I include the "retro prog" subject because it's important if you want to define prog these days.

Some people would define Progressive Rock as any kind of rock music which turns the genre into something else, using exotic instruments, electronic sound effects or whatever. It just has to be NEW, whether it simplifies the genre or makes it more complex. Based on that notion these people dismiss every band which, in their opinion, sounds too much like the bands in the seventies did, blaming them for not being progressive.

I have a very different opinion.

In the 60s, Rock was a very simple kind of music, which allowed only traditional meters like 4/4 and 3/4. Also the choice of harmonies (e. g. A-D-E or A minor-F-G) and scales (major, minor, or pentatonic, with very few additional notes) was very limited.

The 70s prog bands extended those narrow possibilities, adding meters like 5/4, 7/8 and more. There were also more original harmonic developments (exploring the relationships based on the third step of a Major scale, I have a hard time expressing that in English) and scales (for example, the Phrygian mode - don't ask me for examples, but I'll try and think of it ... the Phrygian scale is like a minor scale but doesn't begin with a, b, c, but with a, b flat, c.)

I must admit that there were some composers in pop music who used advanced harmonies in the 60s, like the Beatles.

After the seventies (and many people seem not to be aware of that), the common musical structures of rock music were narrowed down to what they used to be in the 60s. Basically, that is still the case. As far as musical structures are concerned, pop and rock music is stuck in the 60s.

So are the traditional prog bands of today, who try to keep the achievements of 70s prog bands alive, "progressive"? Yes, they are! Because mainstream pop and rock music is still stuck in the 60s. There was no "progression" from the 70s to the 80s, there was a step back to the 60s.

You can talk about sound, visuals, or whatever. These (more or less) superficial values may change between decades and rock subgenres, but the relationship between today's mainstream and today's prog (traditional or avant-garde) is still like the relationship between the 60s' mainstream and the 70s' prog.

It is simply unfair to call some bands who play a wide variety of meters, harmonies and scales, "not progressive" because the remind you of the 70s (because they have a mellotron or whatever), and call other bands "truly progressive" because they use some sounds and effects which didn't exist in the 70s, though they stick to the narrow structural elements which were mainstream in the 60s, as they are today.



Edited by Skalla-Grim - July 21 2015 at 13:34

SteveG wrote: I think most members would see the four letter word Prog as a musical style with distinct characteristics, in the same way that AOR is more or less a defined, if unofficial, musical style. So there's not much experimental music in a genre that is formulated. Progressive rock would be what, I think,  what most members would define as experimental or avant garde, as this genre does not fit any particular formula.   So basically, we have Prog rock as a defined musical style, and Progressive Rock as an experimental or avant garde music genre.   Any questions about this will without doubt by addressed by micky later in the day.

Yes, this hits the nail on the head, or at least close to.  It is a "blackbird problem": the blackbird is called blackbird because it is a black bird, but not all black birds are blackbirds.  Likewise, progressive rock (the genre, what you call prog rock) is named thus because it is a genre of rock music which is progressive (as I wrote in my opening post, in three different but interrelated ways), but there is rock music which in some ways progressive but does not fall into the genre.

The question is, which usage of "prog(ressive) rock" is right?  Words always mean what the community of speakers use them for, but early usages usually take precedence.  The term "progressive rock" was coined around 1970 for a particular genre of music, for the reasons I laid out in my opening post.  Hence it means that.  Later it was shortened to "prog rock", AFAIK in part by detractors who claimed that it wasn't actually progressive (most of those detractors said that punk rock was the true progressive movement in rock, but as I stated in my reply to Skalla-Grim's post, punk rock was a restaurative rather than a progressive movement), and subsequently, "progressive" became a cuss-word in rock discourse.

Since about 20 years ago, however, there has been a new usage of "prog(ressive) rock" in the alternative rock scene, starting with bands such as Tool (who AFAIK were the first to whom this new usage was applied).  So we now have two conventional meanings of "prog(ressive) rock", one in the field of classic rock, one in the field of alternative rock.

Things like that may be confusing, but they happen.  For instance, the word protolanguage is used in different meanings in the fields of historical linguistics and language origins studies.  In historical linguistics, a "protolanguage" is the latest common ancestor of a given family of languages.  Like Latin being the protolanguage of the Romance family.  In language origins studies, a "protolanguage" is a hypothetical system of communication structurally intermediate between the kind of calls apes use, and full-fledged human language.  Such systems would have been used by creatures such as Homo erectus.  A "protolanguage" in the sense of historical linguistics is not a "protolanguage" in the sense of language origins studies, but in the popular press, both concepts are sometimes confused, leading to all sorts of funny (and sometimes not so funny) misconceptions about languages of the distant part.

So what do the two kinds of "progressive rock" have in common that they share the same name?  There are  some superficial similarities.  Both often use oddball time signatures; both frequently have pieces longer than the usual radio-edit single format.  But there the similarity ends.  Some people claim that Tool were influenced by King Crimson, but they have actually as much in common as a skinhead and a Rastafarian (who at least have in common that they are into Jamaican offshots of rhythm & blues, but there it ends).  I once maintained the idea that the label "progressive" for the music called "progressive rock" in alternative rock has nothing to do with the usage in the field of classic rock, but comes from a clearly unrelated usage of "progressive" in electronic dance music (progressive house, progressive trance, etc.), which refers to a gradual buildup of texture in the tracks - something that is clearly heard in Tool, and in many other "progressive" alternative rock pieces.  But that raised a sh*tstorm in a German progressive rock mailing list, and I now have grown some doubt against this connection.  The two genres may share the gradual buildup of texture, but are otherwise not very similar.

It may be of interest how one of the leading progressive (classic) rock labels, InsideOut Music, dealt with this "problem".  They set up a sublabel, Superball Music, for "progressive" alternative rock.

WeepingElf wrote: Things like that may be confusing, but they happen. For instance, the word protolanguage is used in different meanings in the fields of historical linguistics and language origins studies. In historical linguistics, a "protolanguage" is the latest common ancestor of a given family of languages. Like Latin being the protolanguage of the Romance family. In language origins studies, a "protolanguage" is a hypothetical system of communication structurally intermediate between the kind of calls apes use, and full-fledged human language. Such systems would have been used by creatures such as Homo erectus. A "protolanguage" in the sense of historical linguistics is not a "protolanguage" in the sense of language origins studies, but in the popular press, both concepts are sometimes confused, leading to all sorts of funny (and sometimes not so funny) misconceptions about languages of the distant part.

Hmm... Are you a fellow linguist, or exceptionally well read?

LearsFool wrote: I think that this is a good time to put out there a little linguistic hypothesis I've become convinced is absolutely true: people have forgotten the etymology of the genre name. Standard thinking is obviously that progressive rock was named because it was a forward thinking genre, and that the calcification of a specific set of stylistic choices in what we call symphonic prog led to a corruption of the label both musically and linguistically, so that eventually web users here today on PAs sometimes think of symph and that modern rock that is a direct descendant of that school is best referred to as simply "prog", and use the original label to refer to forward thinking contemporary bands only loosely connected to the likes of Yes. I believe that the reality is that progressive rock was named for the genre's progressions, in the sense within music theory; chord progressions that were unique and rooted in irregular if not irrational time signatures, long form songs that string together various unique portions like a suite rather than a medley, and other similar compositional choices that cover all four bases. The calcification did not represent an affront to the genre name, only to fans' expectations that rock bands that use unique progressions would be forward thinking. This also means that it is possible to be a prog band without taking any influence from a '70's band. Certainly this would clear up many debates around here. But at the least, this is my interpretation, and I only use prog as shorthand for progressive rock, which does include the likes of The Flower Kings, even if they are stuck in ruts.

nah...  I think you are making too much of it man. Most listeners know jack sh*t about music theory..fewer still even CARE about the details of what the artists are doing.

all they know or care about is what they hear.
Is it interesting..fresh, exciting it is diffferent. Thus.. easy enough to call it progressive.

thus the common, simplistic but IMO accurate definitiion of 70's progressive rock..the adding elements of jazz, classical and avant-grade, all easily recognizable to most any music listener, to rock music to come up with something new and original. It was easy enough to hear the elements for the press to describe and market this new music as .. progressive.  I hear all the time those BBC dudes calling this not progressive music.. but calling them.. progressive artists.. 

nothing wrong with that man!

Sure there are some eggheads who care about that stuff.. but music is music.  Music is for the heart and soul.. not an intellectual exercise.  One reason prog has such a bad name, or rep, it isn't the music. As an old friend of mine once said here at PA's.. there is nothing better than great prog.. and nothing worse than bad prog.  When prog can fall off the cliff of good tastes with most people (excepting as always miltant prog fan) is the lyrical side. While most people don't know or care the theory of what the musicians were trying to do... lyrics .. any knuckle head can hear and understand that.  The more serious and arty one gets.. the more chance you come off sounding like a complete moron.. or even worse.. a preachy moron.

Goes back to what I believe.. people just want to hear good music.. the more enlightened like to hear new things be challenged even. That is progressive music, thus the irony with much of prog rock.. being as progressive as my big toe.  recycled sounds and ideas. Playing to a style (prog rock)  rather than an ethos.. progressive rock. 


Edited by micky - July 21 2015 at 23:03

Damn right it was.... hahahha

For some reason that always stuck with me.  I think I really did spit my beer all over the monitor that time you wrote that.

I think the term 'advanced rock' sums up what I think of as prog.  It is not necessary, for me, for bands to be constantly innovating.  Rather, I like it when bands go beyond the conventional.

Rosscoe wrote: I think the term 'advanced rock' sums up what I think of as prog.  It is not necessary, for me, for bands to be constantly innovating.  Rather, I like it when bands go beyond the conventional.   There are only so many workable time signatures out there.  Just because 7/8 has been done a million times doesn't stop me liking it - it still non-standard, or advanced, or progressive.   If you keep stretching the boundaries of 'rock' music you end up with total weirdness, so it is hard to expect bands to constantly innovate and yet not sound similar to so,ething that has been done before.

That's exactly how I've always understood the term "progressive" in progressive rock (prog is only an abbreviation). It means artistic/expanded/advanced musical language e.g. Piazzola's nuevo tango is progressive tango.

However a lot of people here think progressive means constantly changing. I think it's unfair to accuse a retro band of being unprog or bad prog. A grand classical composer was creating 30 or more years in the same style but music is still considered creative and genius.

I prefere the term "art rock", which is less confusing, but prog is a more common word.

Svetonio wrote: HackettFan wrote: I originally used the descriptor 'Progressive Rock' for the style of music you described, basically Symph Prog, perhaps plus Canterbury bands (...) (...) I don't see anything wrong with referring to the style as a style as long as it's clear which usage is intended, but, as Steve G pointed out, most on the site use Prog for the style and Progressive Rock for the concept.  (...) Yeah, and that's wrong. First, Symph (and related stuff, as e.g. a bit more eclectic 70s prog with a 'tron & Hammond and / or synth as well, also was tagged as *symphonic rock* back in the day) as a sub-genre of Progressive rock (or "progressive music" - the term that was very often used in 70s) has long had its own name for its dinstictive sound, and add to Symph another name as "Prog Rock", that could only to create further confusion and yet it's hardly to see what there should be some significant gains from this campaign.

Yes - "symph" is a subset of "prog" - a style within the genre of prog.  It is also called "classic prog", at least here in Germany, the latter is the more common term.  Music in that style from later ages is called "retro-prog".  Symphonic prog was the main current within prog in the early 70s, but even then, there had been Canterbury besides it, and a few artists who are hard to classify.  And later, other styles, such as neo-prog and prog metal, evolved from symphonic prog.