Defining "Prog" ... a practical solution

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Kestrel wrote:

I don't consider "prog" a real genre. I don't see a whole lot of Krautrock influence on Symphonic prog and vice versa.

Classic Prog had moved away from 1960s psychedelia, which is where the roots of most Krat lie - it evolved further, and structured the improvisations in a way that mot Kraut could not (exceptions including Can and early Kraftwerk).

 Kestrel wrote:

(...) Genesis, Yes, King Crimson and Tull are also far more accessible than any Krautrock band; 

I don't think so - all have accessible melodies, but the structured improvisations of all 3 can go way beyond "accessible" (how many people actively dislike the sublime, intricate, crystalline atonal instrumental section of "Moonchild" because it's hard to listen to?), while most Krautrock bands produced music that's only "inaccessible" due to large amounts of aimless noodle, along the lines of mid-late 1960s psychedelia - which in itself is hardly progressive.

Amon Duul II were excellent at reining in their jams - but they're one of the more accessible bands of the genre. The more I listen to bands like Faust or Guru Guru, the more I think they were just pulling a fast one - the music isn't complex at all. 

Kraftwerk produced some of the most complex Kosmische music I've ever heard - but they seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

 Kestrel wrote:

(...) they're like the pop of prog. 

The most popular, for good reasons - but not like "pop" at all, really.

A lot of Krautrock was actually referred to as Pop music - I have a compilation I picked up recently of German Pop Music, which includes Can and Krokodil, among others - so in Germany, at least, it's Kraut that's the Pop of Prog 

 Kestrel wrote:

I think it may just be more of a product of our Englishness (or English-speaking, more specifically). Jethro Tull was popular because it had the benefit of being from England and could be transported to places like the USA where they would gain even more success, while Can did not get that luxury. 

OK, those are two specific examples; Tull were popular because they were extremely good at infusing their music with catchy melodies, infectious rhythms, and jazz-like twisting of instrumental passages from the entire group. Oh, and they had this mad flautist geezer with googly eyes, in Worzel Gummidge attire, who stood on one leg.

Can didn't work so well, not only because of the general lack of melody, but because the albums were structured edits of improvisations that were hard to reproduce live, and because not once did Czukay stand on one leg...

To succeed in a live environment, the show is everything.

 Kestrel wrote:

Side question, is Anglagard considered retro prog?

By me, definitely - although the term seems an oxymoron, Anglagard do seem to fit it.