Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog

moshkito wrote: progpositivity wrote:   The primary stated purpose of this thread was to craft a functional definition for a genre.  Therefore, by its very nature, it will deal with general characteristics and what you call "styles".  ...    Here's a quetionnaire for you ... so you can see if you like "styles" instead of being accepted as a "person".   1. Are you white? 2. Are you catholic? 3. Are you black? 4. Are you a Democrat? 5. Are you one of them progressivists?   Now stop for a minute ... you don't have to answer ...   The point is, if we're in it because of the music, it won't matter these answers. But if you are into it because you are a catholic, or a democrat or whatever, that is the same thing as a "style" ... it doesn't make the music "inferior" in general, but it will limit your ability to relate to a lot more of what is available for you.   And when your definition is similar to this by saying that something is like this or comes from this, you are missing the most important part of it all ... that was not in the questions ... you are a human that loves some music and it varies which ... some tend to follow this ability ... but a "style" is NOT EVER an ability ... and you have to decide if your definition is about "style" or "substance" ... which is the part that is missing for me in your definition as you confuse both of them.   It doesn't matter to me that Deuter professes his music to the Rajneeshi ... it's wonderful music. It doesn't matter to me that Ozzie quotes Aleister ... there still is excellent music defined in there regardless of wether you call it prog or metal ... it doesn't matter to me that someone says they are agnostic ... and their music shines and we love it here ...   It's different if you refer it to a specific musical reference, but you are refering it to something that is vapid, has no definition and is "assumed" to mean something ... that as you can see in this thread, none of us is interested in defining it ... and no one can have a concensus for anything including our dam cups of tea ...   If you are going to "define" music ... do so as MUSIC ... not some ideal. And for that you can not use "rock genre" as a reference because it's like saying that all rock musicians are the same ... and that is not true since progressive came around ... their point was? ... the rock genre was boring! ... so why are you even referring to it?   It's not hard to spell all this out ... but your definition has to be bigger and better than your ideas ... and the minute you do that ... you will have accomplished something major ... until then, it will be nothing but ideas mired in more ideas. How convenient for the sake of argument but if you ever take a course in logic, you will then see your error. And the error is your source!  The result is worth the effort, but if the source is faulty or shifts around, your result ... falls off the cliff and dies.   THAT is not what you or I want!

You make invalid inferences and misunderstand or disregard progpositivity's intentions. But in a sense I agree - at least insofar as I understand your post as primarily claiming that  'music' essentially and ideally should be independent of notions of styles - which merely are convenient constructs reducing what you call 'substance' to empty category labels that should not play a part in a definition.

Music is hard to grasp  - and appreciation of it cannot be facilitated by using words - I think we all agree.

For me, this thread has been about meaning and categorization and not discovery of some essence of prog to be communicated through a dictionary-type definition.

One way at looking at it suggest that prog is meaningless. The word doesn't contain some inherent specifications or characteristics - and certainly not requirements that some instance of music has to have in order to be prog. The word itself has no describing force that can reveal anything about what is common to music called prog  It's just an arbitrary category-label. Prog is just a four letter word. This view will shoot down any attempt at a definition.

One might object and say that surely I mean something when I say "I love prog" - namely that I love a certain kind of music. And supposing the person talked to also has formed a conception of prog and says "I do too". That would be an example of a meaningful exchange of linguistic expressions.    

Both views are equally true. What should be kept in mind is that meaning is context-dependent and dependant on conceptualization  - it resides in speech situations and in the minds of the speaker and addressee exclusively. Prog is not some entity objectively out there in the world that is independent of how we happen to conceptualize it or construe it in actual speech situations. This is one of the sources of difficulty in defining it.

The above characterization is so genral that it applies not only to prog, but to meaning of lexical items in general. Another source of difficulty is the highly abstract, 'schematic' and non-specific character of prog. It can refer to an open-ended set of instances of music that don't necessarily share properties and which can vary according to an equally open-ended set of parameters - this doesn't make a definition easier. The question is not "what is common to all music called prog?" But rather "what is a good example of a typical prog record?".

moshkito wrote:   Here's a quetionnaire for you ... so you can see if you like "styles" instead of being accepted as a "person".   1. Are you white? 2. Are you catholic? 3. Are you black? 4. Are you a Democrat? 5. Are you one of them progressivists?   Now stop for a minute ... you don't have to answer ...

For some reason I am feeling the need to stand and radiate correctly.  I mean, what you think I bought that car for anyway?

JeanFrame wrote: I personally like the term 'Progressive Rock', though it seems to lose something when it's abbreviated to 'Prog'. Maybe 'Inventive Rock' would be a better caption? Though I dread to think what abbreviations would come into play (sic!) for that.

Music is always "inventive" in a way.

expressionistic rock

JeanFrame wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: JeanFrame wrote: I personally like the term 'Progressive Rock', though it seems to lose something when it's abbreviated to 'Prog'. Maybe 'Inventive Rock' would be a better caption? Though I dread to think what abbreviations would come into play (sic!) for that. Music is always "inventive" in a way. Always? I think you've left yourself wide open there for some interesting quotes about exactly what 'inventive' is or isn't.

Everything that "invents" something is "inventive": Unless you steal everything, any song you might write is inventive in a way.

aginor wrote: expressionistic rock

You do know what expressionism is, right?

maani wrote: It is not exactly "elegant," but here is the definition I use:   "Progressive rock” is a mindset, a conscious and deliberate approach to writing rock music based on certain elements, which usually include some or all of the following: incorporation of Western (classical, jazz et al), Eastern (Indian, Middle Eastern et al) and/or “world” (African, Latin et al) influences; use of non-standard (for rock) chord progressions; use of odd and/or shifting time signatures; use of non-standard instrumentation (from sax, flute or violin to sitar, bagpipes or African percussion); an “orchestral” (i.e., “scored”) approach to arrangement; extended compositions, often including extended instrumental passages; virtuoso musicianship, often including extended solos; lyrics that tend toward the esoteric or “fantastical” and/or include numerous “literary” references; and the use of keyboards (Mellotron, synthesizers, etc.) and the recording studio itself to create effects, “textures” and “atmospheres.”   Peace.

mmmreesecups:

Edited by progpositivity - November 21 2017 at 16:37

I am personally in favor of a new category, "prog porn."  

Prog: Tracks with more than three chords