Why do we ask if it's prog or not?

WeepingElf wrote: Because I feel that genre classifications are (or should be; they are not always) useful guidelines to finding music one would probably like. So if someone tells me that a band does prog, I conclude that it is worth giving a try (not that I'd automatically like it; there is some prog that I don't like much - prog can be bland and mediocre - and these days there is quite some music that is labelled "prog rock" but I don't get what is prog about it). Of course, there is music I like that isn't prog, but when I read that band XY does, for instance, blackened death metal (or gangsta rap or EBM), I know that I probably won't like their music, and can discard it beforehand.

I've always used the word "transcendental" to describe prog in general, so I obviously approve of said word.

M27Barney wrote: If you can dance to it without looking like a lunatic scarecrow on columbian marching powder then its not prog...

Pan's People dancing to Spirit Of Radio or Fanfare For The Common Man. That could never happen..

I remember the good old days when you turned on the radio and heard prog rock, rock, blues, pop, synthpop, soul, new wave and disco all on the same station. It helped develop musical sensibilities. Now everything seems a bit pigeonholed. In some ways, it's great to be able to find music related to certain genres. In other ways, it's tough on musicians because you might get voted out of PA simply for deciding to record that one synthpop song. Suddenly, despite having 2/3 of your repertoire being prog, you're worried that you might be kicked out for "straying outside the limits." At least the Eclectic Prog category helps mitigate this a bit. But, where do you draw the line? Then, you have some folks who think true prog ended sometime in the 1970s with the onset of punk. Not me. I think prog lives on, but not necessarily in the same form as before. I think it is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. I love the fierce debate about Gary Numan and Devo. Geddy Lee wore a Devo button and talked about how fresh Talking Heads were back in the day. I won't tell you if they are prog or not. If you like Tales From Topographic Oceans, you'll probably say no. If you like Vital Signs or Through the Camera Eye, you might say yes. Be nice, be respectful, and try to be fair in this balancing act.

The Anders wrote: Style definitions can be very useful in order to determine the difference between one kind of music and another. However they can never be precise, and for me as a listener it is not very significant what lable people choose to put on a certain piece of music. Most artists are mixing different style elements into their music anyway, which also changes (well, except it's AC/DC). This is also why I, as a relative newcomer here, find these subgenres rather unnecessary: symphonic prog, eclectic prog, folk prog etc. I don't quite understand the need to put everything in boxes. As for Pink Floyd f.e., they are labelled psychedelic/space rock, but that reall only makes sense to their 1960's work. Plus, I don't think I have ever heard terms like 'eclectic prog' anywhere else.

Edited by Logan - May 24 2019 at 18:57

Edited by The Anders - May 24 2019 at 15:04

Yeah, Enya is probably the music with the fewest rough edges possible.

I don't know much about the history of prog being called prog.

Best to keep it to the most likely and obvious idea of prog - symphonic rock. Or orchestral rock. Yes there are all sorts of off shoots but if you want to explain to a contemporary, rapidly disappearing attention span (of the ordinaries as opposed to we elites) keep it simple and straightforward. This is always good until you get to Progarchives where this tedious simplification can be dispensed with and true obfuscation may obscure the clouds...