Popular Prog Albums that Aren't Really Prog

I'll second that.  I'm a big tenter when it comes to what I consider prog.

Agreed to a point ... for example, I have no quarrel with a period of music being called "romantic", or "baroque", for example, and for me, the history of music, even though it likely does not mention or show enough composers from other places, has a much better take on the definitions and designs of music, than what a bunch of folks that did not know music, or its history ... came up with for "progressive" ... specially when the word "progressive" fits the history of music for the past 500 years ... when an "orchestra did not exist in the 1500's and in the 1800's and beyond, the orchestra got huge, which changed music and made it "progressive" ... until the mid 1900's when the orchestra got broken up in different parts and people did whatever they could think of with it, that did not sound like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky! 

My main issue, as one of the worst examples of some designations is "symphonic", when for all intents and purposes almost all the long pieces by most bands were symphonic in nature ... which tells you that the folks that created this "style" did not know what a symphony was, and neither did they respect the use of the word in the history of music. On top of it, the worst part, is that some folks, even here, admit that some long pieces are merely two or three songs linked together ... and if you did that in your symphony 200 years ago, you would be considered an idiot and not a composer! 

So, in this sense, a lot of the "prog" listing is not really prog and should be removed, but I would feel safer/better if the term "prog/progressive" got removed altogether! And that we try to match these things up to a historical content ... so it makes sense ... not a song out of the blue that has no link to anything, which very few musicians are capable of doing, and we usually don't like them ... too much improvisation, and a guy just hitting 2 stix on a cement mixer ... wow! That's progressive!

;)

With my only observation being that we are running into situations where one band's album is "prog" and the next album of theirs is "not" ... and this was one of Ian Anderson's jokes with a CD in his hand ... this is prog ... and this is not prog!

My take is that a lot of this discussion dies down when we DEFINE THE ARTIST, not each album ... a group/band, either is "prog" in the life of their work, or it is "not". And this would help this discussion better, while also helping define the totality of the band's work a lot better than the confusion that we have here, where all the choices which are in essence well thought out, however, the conceptual nature of the band's work is completely ignored.

For me, Ian and JT is not "prog" at all ... it might even be considered some "art rock" when looked at its totality, but when you look at the history of the band, it has for the most part tailored things to radio format's and not specifically to a "prog" format, with the exception of one album ... but that is one piece of work in the middle of what ... 25 albums? Ciao "prog" definition on that one!

The main issue with the definitions of it all is that they do not recognize the "art form" as important and valuable. AND, if they do it is for one piece of work, and the rest of the band is not as well defined at all. This brings us about to GENESIS, where we might consider defining their earlier material as "prog", even though it fits more as "art rock" than it does "prog", and then, later, of course, the formulaic music that amounted to hits in albums that had nothing resembling "prog" whatsoever ... but it was much better work than the average band ... thus, for me, it should be in an area called "art rock" for its complete catalog, which better defines the band and its complete line of work.

PF was never "prog" for me. It was much more of a trip band early (witness the incredible amount of redo's by many ambient folks of the PF early material ... !!!), and a lot of the rest based on a simple definition of what rock, blues and folk music would be. And it's complete catalog, even though a couple of albums fit into the concept thing, would make this more artistic than prog. 

I am not sure that I like Jon Anderson's definition of a "stone around his neck" ... about the word "prog" when all they had to say was, easily, that they did not think in those terms, but within an artistic context that included lyrics, not just a piece of music ... and this would probably satisfy a lot of RW's comments, trashing a lot of the earlier work for what it supposedly is, but it is merely an issue with the definition being "album oriented" and not "artist oriented", as it should be! In this situation, YES would also fit more into "art rock" a lot more than it ever did in "prog" ... and many of their pieces are actually "symphonic" in nature and design ... when you might even consider that in their early days the pre-show music was ... classical music! You can even hear it on a couple of albums! 

I just find that the use of the terms, in general, are not "descriptive" of the music at all ... and that is the issue for Jon's comments, and it makes sense, because even here, the definition, and sometimes, discussions like this, are just incredible much doggy doo doo about nothing ... even when RF tells you that KC's music is not "prog" and we sit here, like that idiot Italian guy talking down to Gary Green about what GG was supposed to be, and finally GG says ... "we never wrote anything, we just played and played." ... and the worst part of it all is ... we STILL completely ignore their comments. There never "was" a definition, for a lot of these bands and what they did ... and re REFUSE to credit them for that work, by only deciding on this or that album, and I find it a shame that we even have a discussion or poll about which of their albums is more prog ... I guess Stravinsky is some kind of prog ... but which kind? Coffee and donuts prog?

Before anyone answers maybe I should change my avatar. 

It's fair to bring up an album or band and get into it. Doug's original idea is a good point imho.

As always the question that 'why are some bands and albums prog and others not'...is a valid observation.

Logan wrote: I use Prog as shorthand for Progressive Rock, so I would not consider Kind of Blue to be Prog.

 

Me too. Prog = progressive rock. Mr. Davis plays jazz not rock. Would we consider someone like Chet Atkins a prog player just because he takes country to another level? No. What about other genres besides rock, such as classical, rap, disco. No.

Doug, you were correct. This thread is heading downhill.