Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

The Truth

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795

Posted: November 06 2010 at 11:21

Here's an elegant one:

Any band that is on Progarchives.com.

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415

Posted: November 06 2010 at 11:34

The Truth wrote:

Here's an elegant one:

Any band that is on Progarchives.com.

Plus Metal Archives.com, Plain Vanilla Heavy Rock.com, Pop Groups Some Collaborators Like.com, Balloon Strangling Jazz.com and Obscure Hippy Ambient Bollocks.com

BTW I have a very abrasive sense of humour Wink

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: November 06 2010 at 11:42

ExittheLemming wrote:

Paravion wrote:

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I'd like to dwell on some nitty-gritty details though.

About "Rock music idiom" you write "Most people have an intuitive understanding and appreciation for rock music". (I've never head or read anything about a "rock music idiom" before.) This assumption justifies that rock serves as a frame of reference in your definition, because everyone knows what rock is?

Maybe. But I don't like the term for the obvious reason that it, for the semanticist (me in a couple of years, hopefully), is difficult to ascribe idiom-status to the music category 'rock'. An idiom is a sequence of words, where the words don't mean what they usually mean, e.g. "kick the bucket" doesn't describe a situation where someone kicks a bucket (maybe, except if one actually does kick a bucket), but rather it describes a situation where someone dies - thus an idiom. Extending this 'fact' to rock would imply that rock, in order to have idiom-status, doesn't mean rock the way it usually does. Also, one-word idioms are hard to conceive of. You may use another sense of idiom, than I do, if that is so, then there are problems of ambiquity that shouldn't occur in a definition. Anyway, you seem to work with a concept of rock that you suppose to a large extend is shared among speakers of English - and that it, as a category, has basic-level status just as 'hat' has in the dictionary example you provide. That's a somewhat valid assumption, nevertheless.

I have no problem pleading guilty to having sought to define a genre of music in musical terms. To whatever extend this is possible, it is highly preferable.

My proposal is that "progressive rock", at its heart, is not such a complicated concept after all. Parsing out all of the precise details may become very complex, but a general definition does not need to be. Indeed, introducing more complexity into a definition than is needed can result in reduced clarity very rapidly.

But I would not go as far as to say that these elements are always "easily determinable". They are subjectively determined and we will not always agree. But in general, I think we could all have a lot more clarity regarding what it is we are disagreeing about!

I feel somewhat misunderstod. I'd like you to reconsider what I mean by prog being a complex category.

I've not been totally clear, and I'd like to rename complex category to abstract category. Prog is abstract in the sense that it doesn't refer to an entity in a three-dimensional space. This makes it difficult to form a mental image of 'prog' in the same way you easily do with 'hat'. Hat is a concrete category, an entity in a three-dimensional space. That's why I called prog a complex category. Complexity also has to do with prog's status in taxonomies of music. Taxonomies are hierarchical structures of categories in some domain. In a taxonomy of concrete categories there is a level that semanticists call "basic-level categories". For example, take this simplified taxonomy of clothing:

CLOTHING

dress ------ hat (Basic Level)

| |

miniskirt top-hat

Basic level categories are those highest in the hierarchy you can easily form a mental of. It's difficult to form a mental image of clothing (without descending in levels), easy with hat and dress, and more detailed (and appealing) in the case of miniskirt. (not sure whether miniskirt is a subcategory of dress, but let's assume)

Returning to your definition, I read it as though you assume rock is basic level and that prog is its subcategory. I don't think taxonomies are well suited for abstract categories. Prog is relative to many domains and has a place in many conceptual 'taxonomies', and a conception of prog - it's my view - can easily be independant of rock. Even though, for many reasons, and in many respects, your definition suffices. I just don't like the idea of art being defined - "I love its holy mystery"

Very interesting post which I can't pretend I understand in full but:

Although your tongue is clearly in your cheek when you say (and appealing) in the case of miniskirt, does this imply that our mental image of a concrete category can be completely divorced from it's function i.e. no-one imagines a short dress hanging unoccupied in a rack when they see the words 'mini skirt' :
we immediately see what the garment is not (what it is designed to reveal)

Hope that makes sense and sorry for both flying off on a tangent and the ladies in our midst Embarrassed

I'm not even sure I understand it completely myself. When reading it again, I think it lacks clarity here and there.

Anyway, interesting question. I'd suppose that it depends very much on the one doing the conceptualization. If, for instance, a woman working in a clothing store is daily exposed to miniskirts hanging in racks, a miniskirt hanging in a rack is probably the the mental image that gets evoked when she encounters miniskirt uttered or written.

Your question poses a further problem at the very heart of cognitive linguistics (which equates meaning with conceptualization), namely, how does one get to know what goes on in other people's minds?

< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262

Posted: November 06 2010 at 14:25

Thanks for your input! Wow! Are you attending college to become a professor of semantics?

Yes, there is another definition of "idiom" that applies much more commonly and specifically to music and to the arts in general. Dictionary dot com conveys it succinctly as "a distinct style or character, in music, art, etc.: the idiom of Bach.".

Surprisingly enough, one of Merriam Webster's specific usage examples of the word idiom is: "rock and roll and other musical idioms".

I can see that I need to carefully consider the benefits (brevity, elegance) versus the costs (ambiguity, potential misunderstandings) of using the word "idiom" in the definition. I think that is a very valid point for me to consider for revision!

I do think it will be a good idea for me to expand the wording to exclude the word "idiom" from the definition.

We agree that Progressive rock is not concrete in the way a tangible item like a "hat". Any definition of such a term will, by its very nature, leave more room for discussion, debate, and interpretation.

Defining "progressive rock" is similar to defining a term like "neo-conservative". Most definitions will use the word "conservative" (a very abstract word0 within the definition, pointing the reader to look up "conservative" if they need help understanding that concept. These definitions will focus instead upon the elements that differentiate "neo-conservative" from "conservative" in the more general sense.

For no better reason than they are a credible name that is freely available online, I return to Merriam Webster for our example:

Neoconservative:

1 a former liberal espousing political conservatism

2 a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Would you not agree that these accepted definitions of "neoconservative" are at least frought with as much, if not moreso, abstract peril?

Edited by progpositivity - November 06 2010 at 14:28

Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 13528

Posted: November 06 2010 at 23:49

Hi guys,

I'm sorry to say that I haven't been able to read your posts and thus I don't know what you already have been discussed and which ideas have been put forward. On the basis of my own research and approach to prog definition, I would say though that the essence of prog is to make syntheses of rock and other main music styles. So my suggestion for minimalist prog definition is:

Progressive rock: music which makes complex syntheses of rock and some other main music styles.

"complex" has to be added as there are quite a lot of for instance jazz-rock, folk-rock and space-rock which almost is mainstream rock.

I hope my suggestion can somehow contribute to your discussions.

Best luck

David

Edited by David_D - November 07 2010 at 01:18

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 13528

Posted: November 07 2010 at 01:24

The Truth wrote:

Here's an elegant one:

Any band that is on Progarchives.com.

It looks more like an elephant to me.

Edited by David_D - November 07 2010 at 01:46

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415

Posted: November 07 2010 at 02:00

David_D wrote:

The Truth wrote:

Here's an elegant one:

Any band that is on Progarchives.com.

It looks more like an elephant to me.

and a very forgetful one to boot. Big smile

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 13528

Posted: November 07 2010 at 04:30

At the other prog definition debate, we also have some interesting discussions, not least about how to classify prog and whether use terms with western or global scope. Doing that I've just thought some more about which syntheses, I can see being made in prog, and I'd mention them here to support my suggestion for definition. They are:

1. musical - of styles

2. historical or of time - syntheses of past (folk, medieval), present (rock) and future (avantgarde)

3. social - synthesis of the culture of the upper classes (classical) and lower classes (rock, folk)

4. geographical - syntheses of music from different countries and regions

and surely also some other.

So I'll say, "syntheses" is surely a heavy weighter.

Edited by David_D - November 07 2010 at 06:32

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: November 07 2010 at 05:20

progpositivity wrote:

Are you attending college to become a professor of semantics?

I'm not aiming at a professorship. In two years I'll obtain my MA in general linguistics, hopefully.

Progpositivity wrote:

Defining "progressive rock" is similar to defining a term like "neo-conservative". Most definitions will use the word "conservative" (a very abstract word0 within the definition, pointing the reader to look up "conservative" if they need help understanding that concept. These definitions will focus instead upon the elements that differentiate "neo-conservative" from "conservative" in the more general sense.

For no better reason than they are a credible name that is freely available online, I return to Merriam Webster for our example:

Neoconservative:

1 a former liberal espousing political conservatism

2 a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Would you not agree that these accepted definitions of "neoconservative" are at least frought with as much, if not moreso, abstract peril?

It's different in the sense that prog referes to instances of art. Neoconservative doesn't. I think that's an important difference. Anyway, I'm not saying that definitions of abstract concepts are impossible and not something a dictionary should do, of course they should. But it's a difficult task. In your example neoconservative is defined in terms of a person of some belief or conviction, and thus it applies a 'meaning as reference' strategy, and that hardly satisfies a semanticist. Lexicography (the making of dictionaries) and semantics (principles of meaning) are not always compatible. Furthermore, neoconservative is even more abstract than prog. Prog has physical auditory substance in form of soundwaves, nevertheless, and thus ranks lower on an abstractness hierarchy.

About idioms.

A situation where both idiomatic and literal use of "kick the bucket" applies. It's a very funny picture.

I was totally unaware of the use of idiom you use. I've only encountered it in linguistic textbooks, so my understanding is thereafter. I actually assume your use is more frequent, and therefore possibly suitable as an element in your definition - I can't tell. Though, it still bears the risk of confusing semanticists, but they make a living out of confusion, so don't mind them.

David_D wrote:

Progressive rock: music which makes complex syntheses of rock and some other main music styles.

No. "music which makes complex synthesis" implies that prog is, by definition (!), a complex style of music, which it isn't. "some other main music styles" is way to imprecise and vague.

I just took a quick look at the "How to define and classify progressive rock?" thread and I think it's a mess. I somehow suddenly see the need of a simple and sufficient definition, even though it's hopeless. There seems to be a strong taxonomic orientation with focus on neatly structured and organized categories with subcategories ad libitum. I'd maintain that a taxonomically based definition isn't suited for instances of music (or art in general), primarily because it has no experiential base - we don't experience music relative to taxonomies. A taxonomy is a product of reason, I don't believe reason to be transcendental, so taxonomies are not reflections of reality. This leaves us with nothing besides a world consisting of a diffuse continuum of what we as experiencers try to make sense of. Thus music is essentially uncategorized. This is unsatisfactory and dysfunctional. We inevitably categorize the world around us becuase it serves many purposes. For instance it enables us to talk about things(!), and in particular, what this site is concerned, it serves the purpose of being helpful to people who want to discover 'similar' music. Even though I think some of the categories on PA aren't that necessary, completely random, artificial, somewhat ridiculous, and not based on my preferred principle of categorization, to some - they serve a purpose and have a function.

I'm of course okay with that.

But when it comes to the point, where a detailed construction of a taxonomy, including discussions of whether "italian prog" has this or that status, becomes central and important, I think a less taxonomically approach is called for, afterall music is not science.

Edited by Paravion - November 07 2010 at 05:22

tamijo

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287

Posted: November 08 2010 at 05:57

All those words wont get you any closer to the truth, only way is to listen, If you listen, and learn, at some point you will know, unless you are so confused by all those magic words that you compleetly lost your instinct.

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: November 08 2010 at 10:55

tamijo wrote:

All those words wont get you any closer to the truth, only way is to listen, If you listen, and learn, at some point you will know, unless you are so confused by all those magic words that you compleetly lost your instinct.

Please don't feel offended by this question, but do you really believe HE has no perception of his own of what is prog? He is trying to define it as a guide for people who may be new to prog and may want to know.

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: November 08 2010 at 13:11

If "all those words" are my words, you missed the point. I'm not attempting any truth, rather I balance on the edge of nihilism.

The central thing, for me, is that this detailed establishment of genres and subgenres is so non-important. I tried to explain why. PA's taxonomy of prog says more about prog-fans than prog. My guess as to why this site, a lot of forum discussions, admittance procedures etc. are so focused, and sometimes even dependant on, categorization, must be because prog-fans like to classify. I don't really understand why, just like I don't understand how it's possible to translate auditory experience into a numerical value between one and five as well as language. But that's somehow natural and easy for some. I'd be clueless if I was to rate and review an album. People are different.

Edited by Paravion - November 08 2010 at 13:12

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262

Posted: November 08 2010 at 14:53

rogerthat wrote:

Come to think of it, I don't even think there's anything particularly wrong with that, because the distinction between technical and progressive metal is often blurred and incidental. Instead of having an illusory wall between the two, we could probably lump all of it in the prog basket.

My thoughts exactly!

Of course, we could then move on to discuss more subjective perceived relative merits or demerits of the music in question from there. "Progressive rock" doesn't serve as a measure of "good" or "bad". It becomes simply a genre designation that even newbies can understand.

Edited by progpositivity - November 08 2010 at 14:56

Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262

Posted: November 08 2010 at 17:01

Here is my first attempt to remove the word "idiom" from our succinct, yet precise and reasonably accurate, definition of Progressive Rock.

Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints.

Tamijo, I hope you don't think that I'm trying to replace the experience of listening to Progressive Rock music with the simple creation of a short definition for the genre. That is not my goal at all.

But whenever we endeavor to talk about music, we will need to use words. And this is a discussion board after all - so we will be using words quite a lot here. ;-)

For what it is worth, I would like to clarify that my overall goal is to, in fact, fashion a definition for "Progressive Rock" which uses far fewer words than most!

By using less words in the definition, I believe we can arrive at a sentence or phrase capable of more quickly communicating the concept with enhanced clarity.

I earn bonus points if the definition results in a quick explanation that is more inviting and exciting to a prog-newbie than definitions which employ a longer "taxonomic" approach (as Paravion aptly called them).

Finally, this definition will be a "success" if it manages to convey the meaning of "progressive rock" in a manner that minimizes the risk of losing the attention of a moderately inquisitive newbie.

I'm not trying to abolish "taxonomic" definitions or Progressive Rock. They provide a more detailed explanation of a person's vision of progressive rock and can be useful as such. Besides, they clearly aren't going to disappear - so why should I strive to get rid of them?

I would like to send a very big "thank you" to everyone who has helped "fine tune" the definition so far. I really feel that we now have - or at least are getting very close to something worth "testing" on some prog-newbies!

Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16146

Posted: November 08 2010 at 18:44

But first, I'd like to call attention to the pivotal word "or" in the definition. "Music springing from or incorporating elements from the rock idiom..."

My concern is that "rock music" is being described as a "de facto" part of music history, which it still is NOT.

I prefer to HELP establish rock mucic by stating that it is no different than any other music and it uses all elements in music, including some which are better known for being a part of rock/pop/jazz music of the 20th century.

Go to the nearest school and look at the music history section and check out the books ... almost none on "rock music", and in fact, in most cases it's like classical music stops ... since there are no big name composers lested since 1965 or so, having ended with Britten, Penderecki, Stockhausen and the like.

My contention is that rock music, and specially what we call "progressive", as well as a lot of progressive "jazz" (like Keith Jarrett, Jan Garbarek, Egberto Gismonti, and many others) ... has created a large body of music that is the logical extention of that classical music ... with the exception that we are not going to give those folks the credit they deserve for spreading and extending music history ... and we're about to do the same with "rock music", because we are too lazy to help idetify rock music as a serious part of music history, which is how I see "progressive" and "prog" ... but most people here, and definitions, are not even trying to make the music sound right and deserve a place in music history ... they are telling an institution that has hundreds of years that it is screwed up and doesn't know music from a hole in the ground or a thick piece of glass in their nose!

And that would be a mistake.

Before we can decide for ourselves that the music is the gold at the end of the rainblw, let's make sure that we can make the history of music appreciate what we are saying, which is a lot more than "rock music" ... but you and many here, do not know the difference between "rock music" and anything else ... except that in general one is electric and the other is not.!

For example, most jazz rock fusion doesn't usually spring from the rock idiom. It still qualifies as progressive rock (according to this definition) because it incorporates elements of the rock idiom while expanding beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints.

All music does that ... not just "progressive" or "jazz" ... the main concern these days is that rock music is making so much money that they don't care and figure that music history is crap anyway ... and many of those folks are not making their music any better, except their wallets getting bigger!

In response to the allegation that this definition has become so general that it has become bereft of meaning altogether, I must disagree.

It's the reason why I wrote more on the 2nd response/article. I didn't want you to misinterpret the whole thing.

I want to define and make sure this music has its day in history ... but I am not sure that we can if all we compare it to is music that is not even "accepted" into music history and books yet. There is a lot of literature about it, and you and I are trying their hardest to add to it ... but it's still ignored in schools and colleges and if we only "compare" it all to "ourselves" and what we want, then we're not going to succeed. Please spend some time reading music history and seeing how it came about ... check out specially the 1920's and 1930's when surrealism impressed the arts and film and theater, but was ignored in music???? What? ... you gotta be kidding me. IT WASN'T ... but what was out there could not be recorded very well and film was still too expensive. So, for you and I, modern music has no history, until all of a sudden Elvis appears ... and then we have "rock history" .... it's still looked at as a fad and something that is a part of "popular music" and it is not considered important, or even valid music, no matter how hard we try. But when you say ... "with elements from the rock idiom" ... it's like saying ... gee ... so I copied Chuch Berry? ... and I'm sure that Robert Fripp would have a good laugh at that.

We have to get bigger and better ... our critical analysis has to get stronger.

That simple ... but do not use "rock idiom" as a starting or jump point. Were I your teacher and you were writing a paper, I would ask you ... what is the "rock idiom" ... and why are you using a blank statement on a paper that requires specifics and not generalities?

Think music and its history at this point ... not emotionally about what you wrote.

I've done that with my own writing, and all it gets me is into a corner ... it's not about what you wrote, your desire and feeling and emotion is fine ... it's the actual wording that needs to be cleaned up ... so you can move forward with your work.

But ... keep music history in mind ... do not ignore music history and then expect your music to stand up in the middle of the desert ... dead, too!

Edited by moshkito - November 08 2010 at 18:48

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Nightshine View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210

Posted: November 08 2010 at 23:25

Hey, I can sum it up real quick!

If it's liked by a bunch of stuck-up, middle-aged people with absolutely no relevant contributions to music themselves, then it's prog!

Edited by Nightshine - November 08 2010 at 23:26

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 13528

Posted: November 09 2010 at 11:36

Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints.

Hi again, guys.

I have unfortunately still not been able to read the discussions, you already have made. Have I to make the so far suggested definition as my starting point though, I must say that I don't find it enough informative. To cut it to the bone, it doesn't say more than progressive rock being something more than traditional/mainstream rock. It could thus in my opinion be a good definition for what could be redefined as "experimental rock" but it doesn't tell enough about the essence of prog-rock, the way it mostly is understood today. - The latter is by the way the most crucial point for me to explore as a starting point for the defining process. -

So, I'll suggest something like

Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints by adding elements from some other of the main music styles.

I think, the addition will also stress better tha fact that it's a definition of a rock genre.

Edited by David_D - November 09 2010 at 12:27

tamijo

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287

Posted: November 09 2010 at 11:54

rogerthat wrote:

Yes i know, and im in no way saying people dont know about prog.

Im just saying, a lot of music is defined as prog. or prog. related, on this site and 1000 of other places, if you listen to just a fractal of this music, you will instinctly know what Prog. sounds like, but you can read 10.000 posts in this forum, and you still wont have a clue.

So defining prog in text, (or rather defining prog again and again) is not very usefull.

Edited by tamijo - November 09 2010 at 12:09

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours

tamijo

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287

Posted: November 09 2010 at 12:06

Paravion wrote:

If "all those words" are my words, you missed the point. I'm not attempting any truth, rather I balance on the edge of nihilism.

Was not shooting at anyone, was a general post. look at answer in the post above.

I think we agree about the catagories in general, they are created by the industri to marked the product.

As a music lover, they are irellevant. On the other hand, they make it a bit easier, when you have a site like PA, where you want to split thing up a bit, even though i agree the split is very inconsistant, and its a problem, that artists change style, but still sitting where they started out.

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours

JLocke

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900

Posted: November 09 2010 at 13:00

Trite.