Do you like most prog rock?

Re the discussion that was brought up with Miles/Kind of Blue:

As mentioned above, Miles has a bunch of fusion albums.  I think it's important that fusion is a subgenre the site covers, since (a) in my opinion it's the jazz flipside of the prog rock coin--fusion is to jazz as prog is to rock, and (b) there is a lot of fusion and prog that are in a fuzzy area with respect to the distinctions, especially because (i) a lot of fusion bands had some musicians with rock backgrounds while a lot of prog bands had some musicians with jazz backgrounds, and (ii) a lot of fusion was mixing rock elements with jazz while a lot of prog was mixing jazz elements with rock.

I also think it makes sense that if we include an artist on the site because of prog or fusion albums in their catalog, we include their entire discography.  That makes sense because a lot of artists who did a significant amount of stuff that's clearly prog or fusion, but who didn't only do prog or fusion, have a lot of relases that are in a gray area genre-wise.  So cherry-picking what releases of theirs to include would soon turn into a mess.  (That's also the reason why, as someone who likes a lot of music that intentionally blurs conventional genre distinctions, as well as a lot of artists who do a lot of genre-hopping, I've never bothered trying to organize my collection into genre categories--it almost immediately becomes a complete mess).

At that, I also think it's an unfortunate upshot that we wind up with something like Kind of Blue, which doesn't have anything to do with fusion, on the top 100 list.  But I think that's preferable to the mess we'd have otherwise.

On the other hand, it's also unfortunate that we wind up with some releases not listed on the site simply because the artist didn't do enough clearly prog or fusion albums to be considered worth listing overall.

Magnum Vaeltaja wrote: And as for the "big 6"? I don't think I've met a single person who adores all 6 of these bands. Personally I only consider myself a fan of 2 of them (Yes, King Crimson), while two more have a handful of albums I enjoy a lot interspersed among albums I dislike a lot (Genesis, Pink Floyd), and I really don't care for the other two, save for a selection of individual tracks (ELP, Jethro Tull).

I never even realized there was a conventional "big six" before, but I love all six of the bands you mention.  They're all in my top 50 (of music overall), and Yes, Crimson and ELP are in my top 10. 

Big 6 - I only listen to Yes and Crimson out of those bands. Since Miles is still coming up, I am a big enough fan that my son's middle name is Miles.

Edited by Rick5A - December 12 2016 at 05:36

No, but when i find a genre/band that it's not only that i don't like, but i can't 'absorb' anything from it, i try my maximum to adquire the taste to try to understand some of this, since sometimes the music is so different that i can't get it from a superficial listen, i tried to delve into RIO/Avant-prog for some LOOOONG time before really liking it, but when finally Henry Cow's Amgydala finally clicked me, i was so happy :D

Terrapin Station wrote: Re the discussion that was brought up with Miles/Kind of Blue: As mentioned above, Miles has a bunch of fusion albums.  I think it's important that fusion is a subgenre the site covers, since (a) in my opinion it's the jazz flipside of the prog rock coin--fusion is to jazz as prog is to rock, and (b) there is a lot of fusion and prog that are in a fuzzy area with respect to the distinctions, especially because (i) a lot of fusion bands had some musicians with rock backgrounds while a lot of prog bands had some musicians with jazz backgrounds, and (ii) a lot of fusion was mixing rock elements with jazz while a lot of prog was mixing jazz elements with rock. I also think it makes sense that if we include an artist on the site because of prog or fusion albums in their catalog, we include their entire discography.  That makes sense because a lot of artists who did a significant amount of stuff that's clearly prog or fusion, but who didn't only do prog or fusion, have a lot of relases that are in a gray area genre-wise.  So cherry-picking what releases of theirs to include would soon turn into a mess.  (That's also the reason why, as someone who likes a lot of music that intentionally blurs conventional genre distinctions, as well as a lot of artists who do a lot of genre-hopping, I've never bothered trying to organize my collection into genre categories--it almost immediately becomes a complete mess). At that, I also think it's an unfortunate upshot that we wind up with something like Kind of Blue, which doesn't have anything to do with fusion, on the top 100 list.  But I think that's preferable to the mess we'd have otherwise. On the other hand, it's also unfortunate that we wind up with some releases not listed on the site simply because the artist didn't do enough clearly prog or fusion albums to be considered worth listing overall.

Despite saying that I don't like the complete discography policy, I agree 100 percent with everything you wrote here, and I probably will end up not completely agreeing with myself here.... That we end up not having some releases in PA due to worries about discography concerns has been my particular problem with the policy (at the same time there was a dictum that one PA-worthy release should be enough for inclusion). I've wanted an album based category that works much like Various Artists for albums that fit various categories but the artists/ bands have been left out due to discography concerns. I wish there were a way to block albums such as Kind of Blue from appearing in the top list. Some say that it should not be rated so highly because of the ratings descriptors:
5 stars Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music
4 stars: Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection
3 stars: Good, but non-essential
2 stars: Collectors/fans only
1 star: Poor. Only for completionists [I say completists]
But I don't like the descriptors, and would feel uncomfortable rating an album that I consider excellent, but don't consider to be progressive rock 3 stars. A lot of music in PA that I love I don't consider really progressive rock, and some categories are replete with acts not typically considered to be Prog. With Kind of Blue one can't consider it to be a masterpiece of Prog let alone JRF of course.

Incidentally, I mentioned In a Silent Way as the strong start of his JRF worthy albums, but I would go back to at least 1968 with Filles de Kiliminjaro for the beginnings of electric Miles. That said, having the earlier albums is good to chart the progression, and the start and end of a PA category appropriate career is very fuzzy indeed. Herbie Hancock who influenced and played with Davis on Filles de Kilimanjaro is another such artist with quite fuzzy boundaries, and also people were against his addition maybe because they thought of jazz like Empyrean Isles, Maiden Voyage, and later hits such as "Rockit" rather than, say, the Mwandishi trilogy.

Why not implement the same system in JazzMusicArchives? each band/musician can have multiple genres and each album is individually catalogued, i find this a much better choice...

only the good stuff..... like most musical genres.. there is good stuff.. there is bad stuff... I don't waste my time with silly or pointless prog.. no more than I turn my nose up at well done pop or country...

what rules what is inherently superior  though are prog rock forums.... it keeps me coming back... you don't get the level of entertainment anywhere else.

IRON MAIDEN???  prog???? AHHHHH!!!! *draws gun .. knife...  frying pan.. any weapon within reach*

Rick5A wrote: Lewian wrote: It's possible to appreciate much more music (at least the real music that is not made for pleasing a big audience in the first place but is proper artistic expression) by giving it more time and trying hard to work out what's in it and even with some self-criticism why it initially may not have clicked. Most people don't like the idea of having to "work" on their listening but if you do, it's often very rewarding.  This applies to prog as well as to other musical styles including jazz. It certainly depends though, right?  I would think that the majority of people have sounds that they simply do not like for whatever reasons and that's fine.  As examples, some people can't stomach one or more of outside jazz, extreme metal sounds, hip hop sounds, etc.,  and no amount of listening will change that.   I have certainly had experiences where I initially thought something was good and later thought it was great.  I can't say that I have ever had the experience of initially thinking something was not good at all and then later thinking it was great (for any kind of music).

It's all fine anyway. Everyone can like or not like whatever they want.

Still it is possible to get in music that sounds quite alien and "wrong" in the beginning. I'm interested in music beyond the question what I "like" intuitively. Music is communication and I can ask myself, do I get the message? Sometimes I don't get it but I can learn, and sometimes I'm put off initially because the music resonates with some of the sides in me and some experiences that I don't like, and  getting into it can teach me something about myself and help me developing.

(I actually should add here that what I just wrote is probably a bit misleading because by "message" I don't necessarily mean a message that the artist has consciously put into the music, it could also be something produced by my own imagination inspired by the music even if the music was not originally "meant" like that.)

It doesn't always work and I don't always try, and certainly I'm not saying what other should do. I try at times and often enough it is rewarding, sometimes I fail and sometimes I'm just lazy and don't try. Still I believe, from experience, that in much music that I (and probably others) don't get initially, there is much to be found.

Within subgenres that I favour I tend to prefer subsets of those subgenres. For instance, in Prog Folk I favour acid folk, and in RIO/ Avant prog I commonly favour so-called chamber rock bands. And I commonly like Prog that has a psyche element no matter what the category although I don't listen to a great many bands included in the psyche category.

^ Je ne comprends pas