Prog vs Progressive - Is there such a thing?

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

Part I

It seems to me that many people, myself included, get confused over music that is Prog or Prog-Related, and music that is progressive.

Not surprising, since the former is implicitly the latter, isn't it?

Or is the latter the former?

What, exactly, do we mean by "progressive" anyway?

Ask two or more prog fans the same question, and I'm willing to bet you get different answers.

The most obvious answer is that there is some form of progression in the music - but this is usually related in one of three ways;

1. That the music itself contains progressions, the word here being used to mean passages of music that segue into another, standing in contrast to simple constructions such as a verse/chorus based song.

2. That the music on a particular recorded entity be somehow more sophisticated, or, failing that, merely different to music on a previous recorded entity by the same artist.

3. That the music by a particular artist be somehow more sophisticated than an artist held to not be progressive, or in some way equal to that of an artist that is held to be progressive.

Item 3 is obviously the weakest method of comparison, and leads to all kinds of vaguaries and misconceptions about what Progressive Rock really is, and item 2 ultimately shares the same doomed weakness.

Item 1 is not fantastic either, since many progressive compositions are indeed based around the old song structure, so focus here tends to shift to extended instrumentals, generally ignoring the fact that any band worth their salt enjoys a good jam session, and extended instrumentals can be very simple affairs, often comprising 3, 2 or even a single chord - so we're almost back where we started!

Let's backtrack a bit, to get a historical appreciation of Progressive Music.

Quite often I've seen mention of one of other of the great composers of centuries past, citing their progressive nature - and, in every sense we covered above, and others that we haven't considered yet, this is completely true.

For convenience sake, let's ignore them, because while they may have rocked, they most certainly did not produce rock music 

In 1947, the Big Band arranger, Stan Kenton used the term to desribe his methods of arranging music - and this is the first recorded use of the term that I am aware of.

The "progressive" aspects were;

1) Kenton aimed to have a concert orchestra, rather than a standard big band, to perform the music - providing a kind of jazz/classical crossover. 

This, of course, was nothing entirely new, since Debussy, Stravinsky and a large number of other "Classical" composers used jazz methods in their compositions, and Gershwin had already done the "Jazzman goes Classical" bit with "Rhapsody in Blue".

2) Layering. One of the things Kenton's progressive jazz was famous for was the layering of melodies, where one instrumental section would play a melody, then another would play a different melody over the top, adjusting for complimentary rhythms and so forth.

Students of counterpoint are probably tutting that this technique was already quite old by 1947 - but it was new(ish) to jazz, and especially to larger ensembles such as Kenton's, so we'll let that pass.

3) Harmonies. Of course, this layering led to dense harmonies, and dense harmonies were already a common aspect of jazz. Kenton could really push the envelope here, with such a musical force... of course, the Classical composers, such as Messaien and the Second Viennese School had worn out their T-Shirts long before.

4) Time Signatures. Kenton was fond of switching time sigs during a piece, and using sigs other than 2, 3 or 4. Maybe he was familiar with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" (1910) - who knows? 

"Rite of Spring", of course, contains enough polyrhythms, strange time sigs and asymmetries to keep an extreme metal fan occupied for quite some time. Even The Butcher Shop Quartet could only manage a (very good) approximation!

5) Instrumental Timbres. The addition of orchestral instruments led to Kenton's music sounding very much like some of the more atonal compositions of the early 20th Century, and indeed, much of his later work was pronounced "undanceable".

Where does the progressive jazz end and the modern classical begin? 

OK, so this is what Kenton meant by progressive - and it's really, really similar to many people's ideas of what makes Progressive Rock - unless you're talking about Prog after about 1975:

This coming together of the improvisational style of jazz and classical musics, and rendering of the rhythms, melodies and harmonies to the point where they become almost indistinguishable from a continuous and almost impenetrable noise seems very familiar to me when I hear Prog from that time, from ELP to King Crimson to Gentle Giant to Pink Floyd to Frank Zappa - it seems they were all pursuing a similar goal from completely different and personal directions.

It's even possible that this kind of push towards noise is what influenced George Martin to write THAT section for "A Day In The Life", and the similar (one might cruelly state identical) section on Pink Floyd's "Ummagumma".

It's also of note that the "noise" is harnessed - controlled in all cases. This can be seen as similar to total serialism, in which each minute parameter of music is scrupulously controlled by the composer, despite the end result ending up sounding like random noise. 

For the more pedantic, of course, truly random noise, such as "white" noise is far removed from the vast majority of human compositions.... in the progressive jazz of Stan Kenton et al, we find that there are strong dissonances, melodies that tend towards the allusive and complexity in rhythm and timbre. The arrangements themselves also tend to lay flat any suggestion of musical form - but remain tightly controlled by the composer, while performances are encouraged to be wild, free interpretations of the score.

OK, we've followed that path for long enough.

It's plain to see how this applies to most "Classic" prog bands, but beyond that, it's not so clear.

The term "progressive" began to be somewhat overused by rock bands in the mid 1960s - if you were part of the progressive music scene, then, if your music sounded "right", then you could be considered a progressive musician - even if your abilities only stretched to the basic 3 rock chords, but if you learned a 4th, you were right in, as they say.

The Classic "Prog" bands (with exceptions) rose above this base, street/pub rock level, though, and progressive Rock became distinct from the Progressive Music (and Blues!) scenes with the release of "In The Court of the Crimson King". 

Don't ask me why it was that album. 

It's just one of those things. But there was an immediately apparent difference between King Crimson and, say, Led Zeppelin - but also plenty of "middle-ground" bands, such as Deep Purple and Spooky Tooth. Such is the spectrum of Progressive Rock - but such, also, are the differences between progressive rock acts and what you might call benchmark Prog groups - ones that live up to the ideals of the jazz men who first used the term.

Talking of benchmark Prog Groups, The Nice were actually responsible for releasing one of the few Progressive Rock albums that truly lives up to the initial goals - well before ITCOTCK was released. Robert Fripp was known to be a regular frequenter of The Marquee when The Nice were practically in residence, as were members of The Syn (later Yes) and numerous other Prog stalwarts.

"Ars Vita Longa Brevis" is simply breathtaking, even today, and truly makes you reconsider what Prog really is - if it matters to you, of course. And it's the second release by The Nice... and I'm not even a fan of Keith Emerson. Seriously, if you don't already own a copy, BUY IT and be blown away - or completely confused. Either way, it probably won't be what you expect to hear, and will be what you expect to hear at the same time.

In comparison, such proto-prog albums as "Days of Future Passed" pale into insignificance - a pop band backed by an orchestra, with some pretty songs - nothing more.

Comments?

Should I even bother with part II?  

Post Reply	Page 12 3 5 >