Defining "Prog" ... a practical solution

I've been meaning to write a blog about this ... but I don't have the time to go into great detail, so I'll just give you the "skinny":

As I see it, there are two major criteria which can be examined to determine whether a piece of music can be called prog:

1. is it truly progressive?
2. does it *sound* like some previously recorded music which has already been identified as being "Prog"?

EDIT: slightly modified the second criterium: added the detail "previously recorded".

Number one has been defined by Certif1ed, and I largely agree with his definition (and also that statement by Emerson). However, most of what we call prog does not satisfy this definition - and I'm not necessarily talking about new vs. old/classic here. I think we have to acknowledge that there is a certain bandwidth of progressiveness ... some prog artists are less (truly) progressive than others, but we still call them Prog.

Number two is a much more fuzzy criterium ... nevertheless I think it's necessary. Not only are many bands we call Prog not as innovative or musically challenging as others, there are also some which copy or at least take significant parts of the style of other bands which we know to be Prog.

EDIT: Of course it goes without saying that the second criterium is also not a black/white decision ...

By combining these two criteria we essentially get four situations:

A) Something is truly progressive and also sounds like typical "Prog" music

B) Something is truly progressive, but doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music

C) Something is not truly progressive, but sounds like typical "Prog" music

D) Something is not truly progressive and doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music

Edit: By "typical prog" I mean music which was played by the classic bands of the genre, and which - through articles, interviews and reviews - defined the style. For Prog Rock this would mean Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, for Prog Metal it would mean Dream Theater and Fates Warning. Obviously Prog is inherently eclectic, and we can always argue about which bands/styles to use as a reference ... for the sake of this definition I think the reference should only be a very small selection of the most important bands/styles, in order to keep things simple ... the purest examples of prog, if you will.

Now, the interesting question is: which of these situations are "Prog" to you? Obviously D is clearly not Prog. The absolute purists might go for A only. The musicians among us who don't like derivative music but are inclusive in terms of style might go for A and B. Those who simply compare styles and don't care much for musical intricacies might go for A and C.

If we take into considerations that a general definition of "Prog" should try to incorporate most major views, I can only deduce that both A, B and C qualify. This means that if one of my two criteria is met, a piece of music can be called "Prog".


So ... what do you think?





Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 01 2008 at 10:17

I like your way of thinking. I think it might help me if I had some examples.

Edited by Single Coil - July 01 2008 at 09:28

Originally posted by ExittheLemming very interesting and well researched idea BUT A - If something 'sounded' like typical prog music, could it be deemed truly 'progressive' ? (Do you mean it may be similar to some earlier prog ? or do you mean it shares broadly agreed prog characteristics but ventures out into new territory ?)  i.e otherwise wouldn't it be tantamount to 'retro' bands in C ? Despite my infernal nitpicking, I think you may be on to a really good idea here

Yes - C in fact stands for retro/regressive bands ... or the typical expression "... clone". My point is that regardless of whether these bands are truly progressive or not, their music should still be called "Prog".

Originally posted by GoldenSpiral The main problem I see in this list is that it now requires a definition of "Typical 'Prog' Music" I edited the original post ... thanks for the heads up!   I tend to like things in the B category, though we have things from all 4 here.  I don't really know what to make of it all.  I know you're a fan of quantifying things as much as possible, Mike, and I don't want to belittle your efforts.  However, I think "progressive" is a feeling and/or attitude and can only really be represented by a nebulous cloud, not a solid Venn diagram.

I actually don't want to quantify everything ... of course I'll implement the two criteria on my website (in fact I already did ), but they should be relatively fuzzy. These are the steps I use:

0%: Not
20%: Slightly
40%: Moderately
60%: Quite
80%: Very
100%: Extremely

I don't really think that's too specific. It also relates well to normal human language ... for example, someone could say "Spock's Beard are only moderately progressive, but their music sounds a lot like classic prog". You could argue about what "a lot" means, but I'd translate this into 40% progressive, 60% prog by style.

Of course people tend to think about quantizing as soon as percentages are used ... I'll probably have to find a way to avoid showing them directly.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 01 2008 at 10:09

^ interesting idea - to list sub genres - but actually I would even try to be more precise and move to the album level.

But what's the point Mike?

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia Originally posted by sleeper In general I agree with what you've said Mike and look at things in a similar way, but I think Whistler said it best in his blog; "Prog isn’t a sound; it’s a way of doing things. Or rather, it’s an ideal.". For me, those two sentencies sum up progressive music and can be applied to just about everything we consider progressive here in the archives. This is where I differ with Certif1ed, he's looking for a specific musical charecteristic that is shared by all prog bands, at least the early ones that created prog, and what he's found is something that only people with a good ear and a strong grounding in music theory can hear (useless to most of us, then).   Nice post! This statement you quoted ("Prog isn't a sound - it's a way of doing things") is true, but what about bands like Wobbler ... or The Flower Kings? Surely the music is prog. Now you may say "Wait a minute ... it only sounds like prog!". But what difference does it make to new listeners? If you play them the Wobbler album and Camel - Moonmadness and ask them which is "more proggy", I'm not sure what they would say. My point is that while it is very interesting to point out which recordings are "truly progressive" and which are merely copies/adaptations of those original pieces of music, both can be called "prog" ... the label includes both extremes. This is the very reason why prog is so hard to define, and why any "wholistic" attempt to define it is bound to fail.

Its why I like that statement, it can be applied in two ways, to mean that the band in question is trying to emulate the classics by doing things in a similar way, or its tacking the same mentality/approach as the classic bands but creating very different music. Completely agree with that second paragraphe.

As for comparing Hinterland and Moonmadness, I'd say Wobbler, but thats just me.

Originally posted by sleeper As for comparing Hinterland and Moonmadness, I'd say Wobbler, but thats just me.

Which means that I choose a good example for my point ... I'm also inclined to choose Wobbler, but I'm sure that many people would disagree.

I think it's a nice way of classifying.

Originally posted by omri I think it's a nice way of classifying. Personally I will include A B & C as prog. However I think a true purist will choose only B . A real progressive artist is someone who did something totally new = something never been heared before. I'll use the example of Magma given earlier - this is a tottaly new thing and I think they are one of the most progressive bands ever.

Well, the classic bands/albums are a unique case - They also are A, since they define the reference for comparison. In essence, they're pretty similar in style to themselves ...

About Magma: I think that technically they are not part of the prog "nucleus". Undoubtedly many people who favor the Avant-Garde bands will disagree ... but in all fairness, I doubt that as far as popularity, number of fans etc. were concerned bands like Yes and Genesis were much more responsible for the formation of "Prog" as a genre/style than other bands like VdGG, Gentle Giant or Magma. I'm a big fan of those bands, but I think they are a prime example for bands which aren't that closely related to the purest forms of prog in terms of style (60%), but of course are very (truly) progressive (80-100%). As far as innovation is concerned ... Magma are pretty unique, but if you listen to an early album (e.g. 1,001 Degrees Centigrade) and then to for example Frank Zappa - Hot Rats, there are obvious connections/influences. I'm very sure that most of the time we think that something's unique and innovative, it's because we simply don't (yet) know all the influential albums.