Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

By "classic prog" I mean symphonic prog of the early to middle 70s.  The boundaries are of course fuzzy, but this is what I perceive to have defined what prog is.  How do you define "prog"?  You tell me that I am a jerk and misdefine "prog" all the time, yet I haven't seen any definition from yours.  How can we continue with our discussion when you withhold your position from me?

I'm not sure one needs a definition to hear that Jethro Tull's A Passion Play, King Crimson's Red, Floyd's Ummagumma, Frank Zappa's Hot Rats, Amon Düül ll's Yeti, Comus' First Utterance, Gong's You, Caravan's In the Land of Grey & Pink, Area's Arbeit Macht Frei and Can's Tago Mago never had anything to do with symph prog.

WeepingElf wrote: By "classic prog" I mean symphonic prog of the early to middle 70s.  The boundaries are of course fuzzy, but this is what I perceive to have defined what prog is.  How do you define "prog"?  (...)

First of all, I'm afraid that you did not realized yet that in the case of Prog(ressive rock) there are not obvious facts, such as that silly, anglocentric contention that the whole Prog was originated in England and then spread like a contagion across the world. Prog was actually created at the same time frame in different places, including e.g. Yugoslav Prog what retains completely indigenous features and had no that "organic" link to your favourite Symphonic rock from England.
"Why this music is prog?" - who knows how many times we heard the same question! Prog is the process of overcoming the resistance of the audience that has to accept some new, "crazy", "haunting", "strange" or "boring" music that has not resulted by skills and crafts needed for merge Classical Music and Rock (as you mistakenly think) but flashes of unbridled imagination of various bands and solo artists. The audience was / is always free to accept or reject those unbridled flashes of imagination and what the majority of audience accepts, it is Prog. In short, Prog is a matter of acceptance.

Edited by Svetonio - July 30 2015 at 15:22

What is Prog? I dunno but I sure do like it.

Skalla-Grim wrote: In other words, everything new in rock music is prog?? If that were correct, metal, punk rock, gothic rock etc. would also be prog. That's why it doesn't make sense to cling to the term "progressive", especially when "progressive" is shortened to the formula "It must be NEW". Many people around here try to define "progressive rock" based only on the name of the genre, as if that would work with other genres of rock music. You can't explain "punk" or "metal" as music genres just based on the meaning of the names of the genres.

Well, everybody knows that some metal acts are already iconic for prog(ressive rock). Interestingly enough, those acts actually went in prog from the metal genre that was developed in late 70s as an antithesis of prog, as a fusion of commercial hard rock and punk rock , and now even pretty conservative and symph rock oriented OP already accepted e.g. Queensryche as prog as well. It clearly proves that Prog can hit from many directions, from heavy metal as same as from indie-rock, post-rock... or gothic rock:

Edited by Svetonio - July 31 2015 at 02:06

^ In other words, prog's just awesome.

miamiscot wrote: What is Prog? I dunno but I sure do like it.

Prog is musical pornography: no one can define it but they know it when they hear it.

WeepingElf wrote: Disparate Times wrote: So prog is consensus based, that makes sense for PA. Consensus once claimed that our world was flat, centuries later we still use consensus but it's important to understand that sometimes it can be wrong and not everyone will always agree with it. Without an absolute definition I think that the idea of audience acceptance may be the best option we have. If a punk band does something new that doesn't mean that they are prog, it will take an audience to make it so. It would have to be rather extreme for me to jump on board. Yes.  What is prog is a matter of conensus, and there is a fuzzy consensus on this site, and who am I to question it?  As the thread title implies, I feel that there are wider and narrower concepts of "prog", and the consensus here is favouring a wider definition, and so be it.

This site is named 'Prog Archives', not "Symph Archives".

Guldbamsen wrote: PA has and will always be defined by the teams of the day, which means that what earlier incarnations of teams thought of as being prog may not be the same as the current one. Btw Weeping Elf: don't you consider the aforementioned albums to be prog (You, In the Land of Grey & Pink etc etc), and if so, where is the symphonic touch? I am not out to get you or win a discussion - I am merely trying to understand your reasoning

I don't know many of them, so I cannot say anything on those.  A Passion Play and Red are IMHO "prog in the classic tradition", even if they are somewhat on the margins, and they are admittedly not very "symphonic", rather folky (Tull) and jazzy (KC), respectively.  Ummagumma not really, it is one disc of live recordings of psychedelic music, and one disc of mostly experimental pieces from individual band members; the band became a classic prog band only later, with Atom Heart Mother.  Tago Mago is IMHO not in the classic tradition.

I am sort lf playing devil's advocating here, because I don't consider a large part of what's included in Krautrock, prog folk, avant, electronic and space to be prog - yet I understand the ties to our much beloved genre and furthermore get why they belong on PA. The same goes for a lot of the new metal stuff actually.

Fair, then we agree broadly.  Also, I wouldn't say that things such as Krautrock, avant-rock or tech metal have nothing to do with "prog in the classic tradition" - they are at least related.  Hence, my idea of distinguishing between a "wider" and a "narrower" sense of "prog", as in the thread title.

Again, searching for an all-embracing definition of prog is a rather futile undertaking if you ask me. Mostly because it is so difficult to pinpoint just exactly what makes a prog album/band. In my own case it's as simple as: I know it when I hear it.

Certainly!  Prog is a fuzzy concept with wide borderlands in which one cannot really say whether it is prog or not.  Classic-era Yes?  Certainly prog.  The Rolling Stones?  Certainly not prog.  But Frank Zappa?  Hard to say, the opinions differ.

Indeed, I would agree with you in that I know it when we hear it.  And I hear it in Yes, Pink Floyd, Rush, Marillion, Dream Theater, Spock's Beard, Porcupine Tree, etc., but not in Can, Mastodon, Meshuggah or Tool.  But your mileage may vary.  You may hear it in places where I don't, and may not hear it in places where I do.  It is subjective.



Edited by WeepingElf - July 31 2015 at 08:39

With interest I have read this thread, because I also think I have a "narrower sense" of progressive rock. In one of the countless other threads in this forum on the infamous What-is-prog-or-not topic I have posted my own definition along these lines:

Progressive Rock or Prog Rock forms a subgenre under rock music. The basis is a rock band who plays the music, mostly or typically consisting of vocals, guitars, bass, drums and keyboards. What differentiates prog rock from other rock genres is mainly the approach how the songs are composed. The songs or pieces of music are mostly structured similar to classical pieces of music, which incorporate some or all of the following elements: - approach to build the song like a scored composition, consisting of a beginning/intro, one or more middle parts and an ending/finale - use of for rock music unusual chord progressions - often polyphonic use of voice and instruments, vocals are treated as one instrument among others - often use of counterpoint in the melodic textures - often extreme change of dynamics - change of rhythm/time/tempo within the song - often integration of additional instruments into the band that are not typical for rock music, such as violin, saxophone, flute and others.

I feel a similarity to the original post's definition. Interesting in your definition, Elf, is the mention of the social background as being "leftist".  I also thought about that, that the hippie/peace/anti-establishment movement of the late 60's prepared somewhat the soil on which Progressive Rock could evolve and prosper (not that all hippies listen to prog rock, only that the hippies were a kind of pre-condition).

That said, if this site had a narrower sense of prog rock, it would not be that big and would not contain so many artists as it contains now. And even if I do not agree with every addition to the site, on the other hand the variety is so big, that there are a lot of opportunities to discover interesting artists you have never heard of before, which makes exploration of this site much more exciting than of any other site