Has the definition of prog changed at some point?

When I say "at some point" it could be five years ago or it could be twenty or thirty. I wasn't really given enough space in the subject line to be more specific. The important thing is how has the definition of prog changed since the seventies, eighties, nineties or whatever. I know some people are still stuck in the past but over all I think what is considered prog these days is a lot wider than what used to be allowed. For example I often see Radiohead, Muse, Phish, Tool, etc etc considered to be prog(and I have no problem with that)as well as tons more bands who are really very song oriented. I know some people have a very stringent definition of prog but I don't and I'm wondering how strict your definition is and also do you think for the most part the general consensus of what is prog has relaxed a bit or does it still have to have all these hard and fast rules(long songs at least ten minutes, lots of time changes, lots of solos and long instrumental passages, capes, unicorns, dragons, fairy dust etc). 

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.

Regionalism plays a huge role as well. I grew up in a city which thought Rush was way too metal for the classic rock radio station.

Larkstongue41 wrote: I tend to think my definition of prog is much larger than most people's. I have issues with seeing prog as a genre. Instead I prefer to consider it as an approach towards composing music. Commercially available music is either prog or pop to me. Innovative and truly original music challenging conventional structures is prog while pretty much everything else is pop (excluding traditional music and a few other exceptions). For example, King Crimson and Tangerine Dream are both prog bands although sharing virtually nothing in common. On the other hand, despite being often praised as the two most successful prog acts, Yes and Rush surely have had their pop moments. As for the evolution of the term over time, I don't think it changed at all apart from the fact that the availability of music has tremendously increased since the 70s. People's definition of prog necessarily relies on the prog music they have heard. My definition of prog was radically different when I listened to Pink Floyd, Genesis and Camel than it is right now. So obviously in the 70s the perception of prog was based on the most popular bands (due to the lack of internet most notably) therefore explaining people's tendency to associate prog with science-fiction themes and flutes, keyboards, etc.

Hercules wrote: Prog was initially a term for music that was not specifically recorded to be a hit single and which showed some combination of either a degree of experimentation, or complexity or a higher standard of technical ability than simple pop.

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - February 15 2017 at 17:24

Replayer wrote: No, the definition of prog has not changed at all since October 10th, 1969.

This is not mathematics. Outside mathematics (and perhaps law) there are no fixed definitions. Some people introduce a term and it starts to change at the very latest when some other people start using it.
Prog will change as long as it's alive.
(Also, from another angle, I believe that the impression that any two person's definitions of anything interesting could be the same can only be the result of imprecise observation.)

To be more specific, for example post rock came up at some point. So suddenly there was a requirement to decide whether that's prog or not (or partly). At this point the prog definition necessarily had to change because it had to be drawn through hitherto unknown territory regardless of whether post rock was in or out.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: But here's the thing. Not everyone considers post rock to be prog(or part of prog).

That thing was in my posting already.

It has as people think the Beatles are prog.....since what they did was just like KC, Yes, Tull, VdGG and of course Can.

Tapfret wrote: When it gets right down to it, the concept of prog purity is a bit contradictory. Stylistic transcendence is, after all, one of the tenets of the faith.