Has the definition of prog changed at some point?

The more about "prog" as a thing I read and hear, the less meaningful the term becomes. It's used by some in a complimentary way, by others derisively.  It means forward-looking, backward-looking, or reveling in the present with about the same frequency.  Prog is a genre when the word is used de jure in categorization  schemes or in sales parlance, although the performers and the music themselves de facto transcend genre.

I don't mean to be dismissive of the movement, concept, or phenomenon. It's just that names, like all words, live out their useful lifetimes and then should probably be retired. (Otherwise they end up being fodder for arguments and needless animosity Lol).


Edited by CapnBearbossa - February 27 2017 at 11:27

Granted I'm younger than many here, but as far as I know (US) West Coast music (Zappa, Beefhart) was called Art Rock or Avant Garde Rock, never progressive rock. I only ever saw Progressive Rock attributed to British synth Prog (including Crimson) and sometimes Rush. Sometime in the 80s I actually saw Toto referred to as progressive (meh!).





Edited by HackettFan - February 23 2017 at 07:59

The meaning has changed. Back in the late '60s, many kinds of rock music were called progressive which we now would no longer consider prog, such as Jimi Hendrix or the Grateful Dead. In West Germany, progressive Musik was a frequently used term for what we now know as Krautrock. What we now call prog was then mostly called art rock (but of course considered a part of progressive music). The term progressive rock was narrowed down to its present meaning in the late 70s, I think. I don't know when the shorthand prog was invented; I first met it in the rec.music.progressive newsgroup in the early 90s but it may be older.

One must never forget that progressive rock (or prog) is not the same as rock music that is progressive, but we all know that. Prog is progressive, but some other kinds of rock music are also progressive.

Meanwhile, the alternative rock press (at least in Germany) uses prog rock for kinds of alternative rock that show some affinity to prog, often just the addition of synthesizers, while mostly ignoring actual prog. No, I don't blame them anymore (I used to). It is just not part of their subject matter. After all, jazz magazines don't review much prog, either.

 no.

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Everything from ambient through technical metal to nu jazz, all welcome

moshkito wrote: Atavachron wrote: Capes and dragons are still crucial but yeah I'd say the professional, even the popular, definition of Prog has evolved to mean any rock that is progressive instead of just stuff that reminds us of Yes or Rush. I was thinking similarly. The music itself has developed to much further and beyond the capes and the definitions, to the point where ... even us here, can not agree on a whole lot and which bands to kiss up to!

Was this ever different? I don't think there was ever a point at which at least everyone who really cared would've agreed. Music doesn't naturally fit into categories. OK, there are probably some examples to be found in the history of music that certain definitions were canonised enough and supported and protected by certain authorities that disagreement about them was hard to find, but a core aspect of creativity was always not to respect borders and to extend them.

Everything from ambient through technical metal to nu jazz, all welcome

I think that trying to make a difference between prog and progressive as a genre is just wanting to make a discussion out of nowhere. Prog is just the diminutive of progressive... perhaps there could be a point about progressive rock as a genre, and progressive music as an adjective...

Mickey's Left Toe. Mickey's Right Toe. I have heard of neither of these bands.

In some prog circles it's referred to as the little p prog vs big P prog debate.