Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog

 

Thanks Manuel. 

 

I think you hit upon an important topic.  Sometimes we want to include everything we like under the progressive rock umbrella.  But it is certainly "OK" to enjoy "good" music that isn't "progressive rock".  To say that something isn't "prog" is not an insult!!!

 

While this particular definition may exclude some progressive popular music here and there from qualifying as "progressive rock", in actuality, the rock idiom has been so pervasive within the modern era of popular music that this definition is surprising inclusive. 

 

That may be a pragmatic perspective more than a denotative concern but it is an interesting one I think nonetheless.

 

As helpful as those adjectives may be, I'll need to "steer clear" of the words "sophisticated" and "intelligent" in a definition of progressive rock for 3 reasons, the first of which may be nit-picky, but, "here goes"...

 

1.  Strictly speaking, music cannot have intelligence.  Music can be complex, but not intelligent.  A composer can illustrate his great intelligence through the manner of music he creates.  A listener will use his intelligence to understand a piece of music. 

 

When someone says "progressive rock is intelligent music", I suspect the speaker may actually be implying that progressive rock music appeals to and/or is created by people who are intelligent and sophisticated. 

 

2.  I don't believe that either of these descriptors introduces anything uniquely "progressive rock" to the equation.  Providing we allow the anthropomorphism of music having intelligence and sophistication, I believe that some jazz, opera, chamber music, classical music and even some folk music all could quality as intelligent and/or sophisticated.  This is not to say that progressive rock qualifies any less - only that this is not a unique identifier of the genre.

 

3.  Perhaps akin to #2, I think that calling progressive rock "intelligent, sophisticated" music implies that other music is not intelligent and sophisticated.

 

Wow, you almost convinced me with that one. Over the years, I have heard many arguments on this but this must be the most convincing line of argument in favour of odd time signatures I have come across, simply that it is not common in rock music.  Hmm..., no, I consider odd time signatures too minor an element of music to consider a song that is a traditional rock song in all aspects but for being written in 7/8 to be prog.  Regardless, it does not affect your definition in any way and no more did I say that your definition would have to incorporate odd time signatures, for I am glad it does not.   "Music that incorporates rock elements and goes beyond the traditional constraints of the genre" is fair enough.

Re Canterbury, I am not so sure about how rock Supersister's To The Highest Bidder is.  It is unmistakably Canterbury, however, and I would not think of calling it anything other than prog. So, are the chief characteristics of Canterbury not closely tied to rock in general? At what point does prog go so far beyond the boundaries of rock that the rock elements in it are no longer significant? If we then say it is therefore not progressive ROCK, would that sort of defeat the purpose of "progressive"?

But it's not about choosing a wife, it's about simply defining a genre in terms that someone new to it and inquisitive about it would understand. "Oh, you can't define it, you just 'feel' it" is not helpful at all even if that is eventually what I was left to do in my early days of exploring prog.  Thankfully, I heard good representations of the genre first up but it need not be that way for everyone.  progpositivity's definition is one of the more concise and broad-based ones that I have read and  - I must disagree here with Paravion - it is not actually trying too much to determine the elements that go into music.  It is simply saying 'ambitious rock based music' which is pretty wide (though the point about rock needs to be addressed for the definition to be complete).  If it was indeed not about styles or musical elements at all and entirely about a progressive ideal, then may I suggest the cross-section of bands accepted by this database would be vastly different (and also restricted to far fewer bands because only a minority of bands that get called prog rock are truly progressive). 

 

Thanks for reading the post and for sharing your perspective.  Minimalism tends to have this effect on people from time to time.  I can only ask that we not judge "Music for Airports" by compositional standards one would use to judge a symphonic classical work.  The goals of the two pieces of music are very different.  I'll go a little more into that later. 

 

Finally, when writing a paper for a class at school, one is provided a goal.  Most papers are intended to provide detailed information and/or exposition about a specific topic.  Sometimes the assignment is for the author to put forth a case and to then be persuasive.  A well written paper for school will be edited and re-written by the author a few times before finally getting "turned in".

 

But this post is not a scholastic article or a paper for a class at school.  It is merely an attempt to create a useful and generally informative definition for "progressive rock" that is as short and uncomplicated as possible.

 

 

 

Paravion, you bring up some interesting thoughts.  I'll put your words in <brackets> with each of my responses in a new paragraph.

 

<"Does a definition of prog has to be relative to rock?">

 

I believe a definition of "progressive music" does not have to relate to rock in any way shape or form.  But we are seeking to create a very succinct definition for "progressive rock".  My answer is "yes, a definition of progressive rock needs to have some relation to rock".

 

<"By asserting this, you may exclude non-rock prog acts like purely ambient and electronic muisc (e.g. Tangerine Dream)">

 

First I'd like to clarify that I do believe Tangerine Dream as well as most ambient and electronic artists creating music even today belong within the broad category of "Progressive Rock". 

 

Theoretically, however, I will answer yes, although I have no agenda to exclude non-rock prog acts from classification as "progressive rock", this definition does allow this to occur. 

 

For example.  If we start with a classical composer who decides to write electronic music - and this composer writes and releases the music in a matter unrelated to - independent from - the rock idiom, that music would not be considered "progressive rock" by this definition.

 

In actual practice, however, the rock music idiom has been so pervasive in popular music over the last half century, most electronic artists do spring from (and others incorporate elements from) it in their works.  So pragmatically speaking, virtually all electronic prog artists do get included.