Prog Definition

Originally posted by Dellinger Originally posted by moshkito Originally posted by infandous I always preferred the term "art rock" myself.   In retrospect I do too. Specially as it shows an inclination to do more than just something that is as defined as what has become known as "progressive".   I think the biggest isse, is that some of the folks came from the Sex Pistols and Iggy Pop school and then others were thrashing like the heathens ... and then the word "art rock" started taking a hit. But I have to tell you that back in the day in Southern California, we used to call all these "imports" ... not anything else! Why? You could not get them in any other form!   And then 1974 and 1975 arrived! I would prefer that label too, it kind of defines better what I like about prog. Though, then perhaps the bands listed as prog may end up being somewhat different. I would say that something like Cat Steven's "Tea for the Tillerman" would fit in the description of "Art Rock". Plus, as a matter of fact, all music is art, the quality of the art is what differs (and then, the quality of the art is measured by whomever is listening).

Edited by Dean - March 14 2012 at 19:07

The forum is in no shortage of people who want to avoid categorization, apparently because they see progressive rock as continually defying categorization. But how can one flout a category if there are no categories to flout??? Progressive rock needs categories as raw material to reshape. It would cease to exist without them (as would language and several other cognitive processes). Here's how I think of things myself:

Avant-Garde music: music that is comprised of innovations affecting melody, chords, harmony, timing, timbre, choice of instrumentation, new instrumentation, composition & arrangement, concept development, mood changes, predictability, and genre. What counts as an innovation is always contingent upon how something is historically grounded (e.g. Combining jazz and rock was innovative at one time in history, but it no longer is).

Progressive Rock: a sub-type of avant-garde music that was characterized by a network of influences originating in England beginning in the late 1960s (exemplars- Genesis, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, Yes). This network of influences has continued to grow (unevenly) through time and geography.

Art Rock: a sub-type of avant-garde music that was characterized by a network of influences originating in California beginning in the mid 1960s and continuing onward (exemplars- Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention, Captain Beefheart, Henry Kaiser, Steve Vai).

This approach allows for much needed sophistication in that some musicians are either more highly or less highly entrenched within a category. Occasional crossovers between progressive rock and art rock are also possible (e.g. Adrian Belew, Chester Thompson).

Also look at how else this can be applied:

Neo-Prog: a continuation of a network of influences originating in England beginning in the late 1960s that is at best marginally avant-garde.

Originally posted by HackettFan The forum is in no shortage of people who want to avoid categorization, apparently because they see progressive rock as continually defying categorization. But how can one flout a category if there are no categories to flout??? Progressive rock needs categories as raw material to reshape. It would cease to exist without them (as would language and several other cognitive processes).

Only to the extent that prog rock listeners need to classify music as such and such.  It is hardly so relevant to an artist and his quest for innovation.  Was the connotation progressive applied in the time of Vivaldi or Beethoven or even, much later, Louis Armstrong or Charlie Parker?

Ya, lets keep this one alive to avoid another one

Edited by tamijo - July 07 2012 at 02:09

I agree with Iazland that we all have our own definitions of progressive rock/music. My personal definition is anything that makes strides in musical innovation and experimentation

Originally posted by Dean Originally posted by smartpatrol I agree with Iazland that we all have our own definitions of progressive rock/music. My personal definition is anything that makes strides in musical innovation and experimentation Which is all well and good if you keep it to yourself. The problem with such a definition comes when you use it in conversation with anyone else, or expect others to adhere to your personal definition. Then it becomes misleading and confusing, and at worse - wrong. A Prog definition needs to be universally accepted by the majority so we can all talk using the same vocabulary and have it mean the same thing, personal definitions can never achieve that.

Dean, for once: you are my hero.

Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by HackettFan The forum is in no shortage of people who want to avoid categorization, apparently because they see progressive rock as continually defying categorization. But how can one flout a category if there are no categories to flout??? Progressive rock needs categories as raw material to reshape. It would cease to exist without them (as would language and several other cognitive processes). Only to the extent that prog rock listeners need to classify music as such and such.  It is hardly so relevant to an artist and his quest for innovation.  Was the connotation progressive applied in the time of Vivaldi or Beethoven or even, much later, Louis Armstrong or Charlie Parker?

Thanks for the post, but I'm afraid I can't agree. It's very important to the musicians themselves. Frank Zappa has always intentionally juxtaposes different styles. These are not just random notes he felt like playing that by some coincidence might start out like rock and then morph into perhaps a Broadway show tune. Peter Gabriel has worked with World Music and in fact uses the term. Now what is World Music? Steve Hackett spent time in South America learning about their style of acoustic guitar. Geographic region is just another parameter with which to categorize something. I have to stand by my comment that categories are a raw material that musicians/artists work with. Musical categories don't exist prior to us creating them, and they can be re-analyzed in any number of ways, but that just means that we can't look at things in unsophisticated ways.

Originally posted by tamijo Originally posted by HackettFan (e.g. Combining jazz and rock was innovative at one time in history, but it no longer is).   Depends..i would say if you combine a more resent Rock (say Trash Metal) with Jazz (say Hawkins style Sax) would still be very innovative, at least i cant remember anything close to that.

I completely agree, but you've redefined the rock category to be trash metal, so it's different.

Originally posted by HackettFan Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by HackettFan The forum is in no shortage of people who want to avoid categorization, apparently because they see progressive rock as continually defying categorization. But how can one flout a category if there are no categories to flout??? Progressive rock needs categories as raw material to reshape. It would cease to exist without them (as would language and several other cognitive processes). Only to the extent that prog rock listeners need to classify music as such and such.  It is hardly so relevant to an artist and his quest for innovation.  Was the connotation progressive applied in the time of Vivaldi or Beethoven or even, much later, Louis Armstrong or Charlie Parker? Thanks for the post, but I'm afraid I can't agree. It's very important to the musicians themselves. Frank Zappa has always intentionally juxtaposes different styles. These are not just random notes he felt like playing that by some coincidence might start out like rock and then morph into perhaps a Broadway show tune. Peter Gabriel has worked with World Music and in fact uses the term. Now what is World Music? Steve Hackett spent time in South America learning about their style of acoustic guitar. Geographic region is just another parameter with which to categorize something. I have to stand by my comment that categories are a raw material that musicians/artists work with. Musical categories don't exist prior to us creating them, and they can be re-analyzed in any number of ways, but that just means that we can't look at things in unsophisticated ways.

I was addressing prog categories specifically and not categories generally.  Even generally speaking, it is an open minded artist who does not think two pieces of a puzzle cannot fit just because they are categorized as different styles.  They see possibilities in achieving a blend of both styles but it is not always a conscious exercise and I would have to disagree to that extent.  Musicians absorb diverse influences and express those intuitively in the compositional process.   Whereas the purpose of categories seems to militate against blending and endorse distinction and discrimination and the delineating of boundaries.   Derek Trucks is considered creative for his fresh approach to blues but this is also a function of blues drawing very tight stylistic boxes for itself, which forces many other artists to sound too much like each other.

Coming back to prog, my point was that a Miles Davis may have simply set out to explore his insights and expound them in music.  It was not as if he set out to make what would be called progressive jazz and such was his command to innovate.  It is a post-facto term.   Applying your thesis that categories are raw material for musicians to the extant prog categories...I am not quite sure how it would work.  I have difficulties with the two most commonly used terms - symphonic prog and eclectic prog.  Um, does this mean to say symphonic prog rock bands are not eclectic?  That would (a) go against a very basic feature of prog, which is to demonstrate different styles in the same work and (b) not be supported by historical precedents.  What is the basis, ultimately, for classifying Yes as symphonic prog rock band and Gentle Giant as eclectic?  The only difference is that Yes use that wall-of-sound effect for which they get called symphonic, but they certainly are eclectic themselves.  And so are Genesis or ELP for that matter.   What again is the difference between heavy prog and prog metal?  Metal by definition is heavy music.   

I do understand exactly what listeners mean when they peruse of these above classifications, but they only highlight simplistic and superficial differences, which I frankly cannot see as being particularly useful for artists.  Prog rock by its nature is more an approach than a rigid, frozen style and by consciously choosing such an approach to make his music, the artist has already classified himself.  Further subdivision may at the most help listeners seek more of the same of what they already like, which all listeners, including progressive ones, like to do and that's as far as it goes.      

Just to clarify, the post above by Formentera lady and npjnpj were originally in a separate thread, bu they have been merged into this existing discussion on the same topic.