A Random Thought

Indeed and there are many on that list that I have seen it argued are not prog, or don't fit into that category by dint of their commercial success.

As I pointed out in my OP, prog to me exists on a continuum and I would argue that the groups you named could slide up and down that continuum according to whoever is making the assesment.

I don't think that I ever implied that art exits in a vacuum so I can't really address that part of your response.

I’ve always thought of prog on a monochrome spectrum of sorts. If here is some theoretical idea of what is undeniably and unarguably prog at one end (it doesn’t matter if this is black or white, but let’s call it black for simplicity), the. At the other end of the spectrum is something that is absolutely and certainly NOT prog (in this case, white). What is or isn’t prog is the (50 shades of) grey in the middle. Bands like Yes and Genesis are definitely closer to the black than the other listed bands above - but that doesn’t mean any are or are not prog. It’s all so what subjective, as everyone has a different idea of how grey something has to be, to be prog (or not).

Hence why I didn’t call them black, but just suggested they would be closer to black. The first Yes song I ever heard was “Owner”, and that’s probably the only Yes song a lot of people know.

For a lot of people my age, the only Genesis we knew was the singles from Shapes and Touch we heard on the radio. I found out about their earlier incarnation completely by accident. I bought Foxtrot after Invisible Touch, because it was by the same band, so thought it would sound the same, and because the cover looked cool, and it was cheaper than Shapes (which I would probably otherwise have bought next).

I do not make that claim.

Setting aside the term "true prog" for a moment I do propose that there is a continuum that exists between what is considered "prog" and "not prog", and its esotericness (?) goes a long way to determining where on that continuum any artist or piece sits.

I in no way wish to imply that "esoteric" is being used in any pejorative fashion here. The esoterica of prog is one of its main drawing points for me.

Nor do I wish to equate avant guard with the leavings of a male bovine, as Lennon did before fully embracing it.

I think that we can agree that prog is not just "!"s and "0"s, regardless of how music is decontructed.

Although when music was first recorded entirely on computer (apart from vocals) it was quite progressive. Some magazines even called “Perverse” Jesus Jones’ prog album. Although I doubt many here would agree with that, it just goes to show how subjective the idea of what prog is or isn’t. (They might, instead, agree with the more infamous quite that Jesus Jones sounds like The Prodigy fist****ing The Young Gods.)

This may or may not be an interesting read for those who want to know more about Jesus Jones and their pursuit of music as zeroes and ones. (As usual, it seems, the singles released were not really that indicative or representative of the sound of the album, and tend to be my least favourites on it.)

I think the words are being thrown around by people who haven’t interpreted your post in the way it was intended, and most probably because they’ve seen soooooooo many “what is prog” threads over time, where the OPs are rigidly dogmatic in their views (the most recent being David”s).  It’s easy to gloss over threads that might seem outwardly familiar, and dismiss them.

However, I think your post is quite different, as it does not even attempt to set out t9 find out what is or is not prog, so much as discuss the continuum, and also a comparison/contrast with avant-garde. I don’t think you really set out to suggest that the two are the same thing or not, so much as to question the distinction. And, to be fair, that distinction is probably as artificial and arbitrary as the borders between any genres - particularly when avant garde and prog are not genres in themselves, so much as added descriptors that can be added to music within any genre.

Depending on genre, the words experimental, avant garde and progressive are used virtually as synonyms. One genre might use one to mean the same within that genre, as another of the words mean in another genre. it’s merely a matter of convention which gets used the most often. And convention is not so much objectivity as agreed subjectivity.

There’s no elitism in prog, but there is certainly elitism among many of its fans - and that in itself is a barrier for new fans. I know a lot of people that might like prog if they gave it a chance, but are put off by the prog snobs and gatekeepers.

That snobbery is related to emotion as much as intellect, because (as you say) music = emotions.

You’ve definitely not used the emotionally charged words yourself. That’s on those who have come here and more or less dismissed your words, without really taking them in (as I see it),

Hi,

I think this story needs a slight revision ... and it was the beginning of the 20th century that started bringing us film (and folks got scared and ran when a gun pointed at the camera and fired, and you saw all the smoke! Not a funny joke today!), and then a few years later the "talkies" which were unbelievable, and at first many people thought it was fake, and found out in a few years, it wasn't.

Classical music has had its share of "esoteric" and "strange" folks in the 20th century and it wasn't until the revolutionized 50's and 60's that a lot of that strange material really took hold and form, and was studied and enjoyed, and of course, immediately jazz and rock took off at the same time!

Since the end of the 60's, the media has taken over and they helped make a lot of things important, as one would say about "Punk Rock" ... but in the end, they had appreciated the massive changes in music and the arts, of which rock music was way far behind. Film was way ahead, if you look at what Jean Luc Godard, Luis Bunuel, Jean Cocteau and many others were doing, which was far more expressive, strange and weird than ever, and they NEVER lost their touch. Godard, today is still off his rocker, but bless his heart ... he still challenges you to tell him what it is about ... he would tell you he doesn't even know! And Bunuel, continued to paint canvases with films and his last one was probably the best of them, although not as controversial as one of his first (the painting of Jesus of Nazareth laughing) and then a couple of weeks later (so to speak) he even did a Last Supper ... both rock and jazz were at least 10 years behind these, and the media was the problem ... they were still into the "star" age of the classical musicians and famous published writers, and well known painters.

But the line, disappeared, and these days, it's really difficult to line one of these up, although you and I will sit here and scratch our heads at yet another Birth of Mozart by one of the most inventive, and crazy directors ever! Most folks can not even watch a minute of that I don't think as the nudity is totally insane!

David Lynch, for me, is not that great and he owes a lot to Luis Bunuel and many other film makers. With one exception ... Luis was well educated and grew up in a Seminary school and had a very close Dominican friend, and yet he made fun of so many "religious" idiocies which many thought were offensive, and these same folks never bothered to look in the mirror and realize the silliness. David Lynch did not have what I would consider the "extreme" education to which the director could make fun of later, and a lot of his work bordered on the weird, for the sake of being weird, what I call ... just take that hit of cheap LSD and let it do its thing ... but it only does half the intended experience.

He's fun to watch, and I don't dislike it, but I do not think he is one of the best ... just a very good one. But I wonder how much of it is the issue/problem with the Hollywood styled bureaucracy that might be a problem to get a film going when the story is ... not something the money folks want or can relate to. He probably would be far better in Europe ... with one issue. He wouldn't have one fifth of the money for a film, if anywhere close to that!