Modern Prog

Originally posted by Atavachron Bruce Lee developed his martial art as a 'Way of No Way', a style that would remain open to change and progress rather than remaining in static form.   You could relate this to the Progressive Concept in rock, something the OP has deemed missing in modern prog.   I don't know that it is, but it may be.   If we look to jazz as it is currently, e.g. Modern Jazz, versus what the Jazz Concept is, e.g. improvisation within a certain structure, we see a vibrant but arguably staid musical form.   I love a good hot bop group, but Bop as a style is over fifty years old, does that mean bop cannot progress?   More importantly, should it? The true test of Prog as a genre that lives up to its claims and potential is where it is twenty-five or thirty years from now.  Would it be recognizable to us, and should it?   Will technology impact music in ways we can't imagine or will rock be always rock, progressive or not, still influenced by the timeless legends?

Excellent post (for a pomaceous fruit) - the idea of form not being a vehicle or a container within which we can throw unprecedented contents is an interesting one. (if that's what you meant) Trouble is David, once you dispense with form and traditional structures altogether, you ain't got music that is readily identifiable any longer (which, depending on your orientation is either heaven sent or the death knell for what was hitherto deemed:Progressive Rock)

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ... Excellent post (for a pomaceous fruit) - the idea of form not being a vehicle or a container within which we can throw unprecedented contents is an interesting one. (if that's what you meant) Trouble is David, once you dispense with form and traditional structures altogether, you ain't got music that is readily identifiable any longer (which, depending on your orientation is either heaven sent or the death knell for what was hitherto deemed:Progressive Rock)

Prog has lasted 45 years? True.

To be more specific, though, it's the great prog bands of the early 70s that have lasted 45 (or 40) years. Whether many modern prog bands will still be listened to in 2052 is another matter.

Originally posted by Atavachron Bruce Lee developed his martial art as a 'Way of No Way', a style that would remain open to change and progress rather than remaining in static form.   You could relate this to the Progressive Concept in rock, something the OP has deemed missing in modern prog.   I don't know that it is, but it may be.   If we look to jazz as it is currently, e.g. Modern Jazz, versus what the Jazz Concept is, e.g. improvisation within a certain structure, we see a vibrant but arguably staid musical form.   I love a good hot bop group, but Bop as a style is over fifty years old, does that mean bop cannot progress?   More importantly, should it? The true test of Prog as a genre that lives up to its claims and potential is where it is twenty-five or thirty years from now.  Would it be recognizable to us, and should it?   Will technology impact music in ways we can't imagine or will rock be always rock, progressive or not, still influenced by the timeless legends?

I just had a discussion with a guy about prog and categorizing things. I too went the way of using Bruce Lee as an analogy. I think categorization, like the Baroque and Romantic periods that were mentioned earlier, are definitely artificial but worth using as guidelines for convenience. BUT, that tends to lead people into thinking that everything should be categorized down to the last, tiny aspect of a piece of music. Once that happens, it limits what artists do because they are buying into the idea that they can't do certain things if they want to do a certain genre, or that they are super ground-breaking or original because they alter the standard delimitations of a genre in the slightest.

Here is an excerpt from that conversation:

"And when [categorization goes too far], it FEELS like it's more intellectual but it only serves to muddle the truth. When you can break through that mask of "let's define prog as this static thing, and oh btw there are 1000 kinds of prog" you see that the ONLY way to understand prog (and music, and any art) is through its essence. Sometimes you can only understand a thing by knowing what it is not. Not knowing exactly what it is.

Is your mind blown??

If Laozi was here, I think he'd shake my hand. "


Bruce Lee's philosophy applies perfectly because it allows for growth and has no limitations. People tend to associate prog with intellectual music. That's one of the reasons, imo, that people think that (falsely intellectual) uber-classification is a good thing. Or a "right" thing.

I could have been more concise, sorry.

Originally posted by Nick Dilley That's one of the reasons, imo, that people think that (falsely intellectual) uber-classification is a good thing. Or a "right" thing.

To be fair, I think at least PA have kept it down to only a limited number of categories, considering the sheer diversity of music that prog rock covers.  When you compare it to the sub and sub-sub-classifications in metal, prog classification is much more broad based.   And as Gerinski mentioned, they have tried to capture the essence of prog with respect to new bands rather than only what SOUNDS like so called classic prog (and of course the only thing that really binds together classic prog together is a similar approach for that matter, but that's a different story).   I am not sure all progheads are reconciled to that or fully embrace that approach but that is inevitable.   Not everybody is attracted to prog by its approach though I reckon a good majority are.

Originally posted by Nick Dilley Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by Nick Dilley That's one of the reasons, imo, that people think that (falsely intellectual) uber-classification is a good thing. Or a "right" thing. To be fair, I think at least PA have kept it down to only a limited number of categories, considering the sheer diversity of music that prog rock covers.  When you compare it to the sub and sub-sub-classifications in metal, prog classification is much more broad based.   And as Gerinski mentioned, they have tried to capture the essence of prog with respect to new bands rather than only what SOUNDS like so called classic prog (and of course the only thing that really binds together classic prog together is a similar approach for that matter, but that's a different story).   I am not sure all progheads are reconciled to that or fully embrace that approach but that is inevitable.   Not everybody is attracted to prog by its approach though I reckon a good majority are. I agree. When I first came across PA, I was a bit wary. EVERY encounter except one that I had with fellow prog rockers were always dudes who couldn't accept the idea that prog could include something beyond Rush, Yes, Gensis, Moody Blues, etc. Then I saw in the popular artist thingy at the top of the home page bands from the likes of Opeth to Zappa, Sigur Ros and Radiohead to Dream Theater. At that point, I knew I could find some people who were on the same wavelength--even if our tastes were very different. I can honestly say that I am not disappointed. Anyway, I writing this to say I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression about how I might view PA. It's a cool community and I am so glad I am a part of it!! EDIT: Not to belittle classic prog! ...I love me some Moodies on a daily basis .

This is the sort of thing I was talking about.  There are more vocal votaries of the classic prog sound on the forum but it doesn't necessarily represent the views of the group.  With that said, some regular members who were more interested in the new scene  seem to have sort of gone into hibernation.  I hope it is not indicative of a larger trend as far as PA goes.

Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by Nick Dilley Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by Nick Dilley That's one of the reasons, imo, that people think that (falsely intellectual) uber-classification is a good thing. Or a "right" thing. To be fair, I think at least PA have kept it down to only a limited number of categories, considering the sheer diversity of music that prog rock covers.  When you compare it to the sub and sub-sub-classifications in metal, prog classification is much more broad based.   And as Gerinski mentioned, they have tried to capture the essence of prog with respect to new bands rather than only what SOUNDS like so called classic prog (and of course the only thing that really binds together classic prog together is a similar approach for that matter, but that's a different story).   I am not sure all progheads are reconciled to that or fully embrace that approach but that is inevitable.   Not everybody is attracted to prog by its approach though I reckon a good majority are. I agree. When I first came across PA, I was a bit wary. EVERY encounter except one that I had with fellow prog rockers were always dudes who couldn't accept the idea that prog could include something beyond Rush, Yes, Gensis, Moody Blues, etc. Then I saw in the popular artist thingy at the top of the home page bands from the likes of Opeth to Zappa, Sigur Ros and Radiohead to Dream Theater. At that point, I knew I could find some people who were on the same wavelength--even if our tastes were very different. I can honestly say that I am not disappointed. Anyway, I writing this to say I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression about how I might view PA. It's a cool community and I am so glad I am a part of it!! EDIT: Not to belittle classic prog! ...I love me some Moodies on a daily basis . This is the sort of thing I was talking about.  There are more vocal votaries of the classic prog sound on the forum but it doesn't necessarily represent the views of the group.  With that said, some regular members who were more interested in the new scene  seem to have sort of gone into hibernation.  I hope it is not indicative of a larger trend as far as PA goes.

Originally posted by BlakeMcQ Prog has lasted 45 years? True. To be more specific, though, it's the great prog bands of the early 70s that have lasted 45 (or 40) years. Whether many modern prog bands will still be listened to in 2052 is another matter.

I remember vividly in 1977 when PROG was declared dead and annihilated by MM and NME , Lester Bangs and Creem in the USA .  THEY were DEAD wrong.  I also remember being told as a kid that the Beatles were just a fad........ Nothing really dies , it just fades away (MacArthur) only to be reborn from the ashes like a Phoenix.

Edited by tszirmay - May 24 2012 at 14:59

Originally posted by Nick Dilley Originally posted by Atavachron Bruce Lee developed his martial art as a 'Way of No Way', a style that would remain open to change and progress rather than remaining in static form.   You could relate this to the Progressive Concept in rock, something the OP has deemed missing in modern prog.   I don't know that it is, but it may be.   If we look to jazz as it is currently, e.g. Modern Jazz, versus what the Jazz Concept is, e.g. improvisation within a certain structure, we see a vibrant but arguably staid musical form.   I love a good hot bop group, but Bop as a style is over fifty years old, does that mean bop cannot progress?   More importantly, should it? The true test of Prog as a genre that lives up to its claims and potential is where it is twenty-five or thirty years from now.  Would it be recognizable to us, and should it?   Will technology impact music in ways we can't imagine or will rock be always rock, progressive or not, still influenced by the timeless legends? I just had a discussion with a guy about prog and categorizing things. I too went the way of using Bruce Lee as an analogy. I think categorization, like the Baroque and Romantic periods that were mentioned earlier, are definitely artificial but worth using as guidelines for convenience. BUT, that tends to lead people into thinking that everything should be categorized down to the last, tiny aspect of a piece of music. Once that happens, it limits what artists do because they are buying into the idea that they can't do certain things if they want to do a certain genre, or that they are super ground-breaking or original because they alter the standard delimitations of a genre in the slightest. Bruce Lee's philosophy applies perfectly because it allows for growth and has no limitations.  People tend to associate prog with intellectual music. That's one of the reasons, imo, that people think that (falsely intellectual) uber-classification is a good thing. Or a "right" thing.

It should also be pointed out that Lee's style, Jeet Kune Do, did have certain fundamentals that are consistent and still applied by practitioners today, such as intercepting an opponent's attack or adapting to a particular tactic, as well as a few basic strikes.   But those are concepts to be integrated into a practitioner's approach, not pre-arranged movements (as is the case in 95% of martial arts/combat sports).   As it is today, Jeet Kune Do is a respected fighting art studied by many, and has indeed adopted much of what's been learned over the decades from other combat arts, streetfights and other real-life experience, and contemporary mixed martial arts.

In this way, we can more closely compare Lee's theorems with Progressive rock and, at least speculatively, see how a musical form may allow itself to expand or change but still maintain a few basic tenets.   In Prog that could mean striving to develop phrases and passages to a significant extent, the potential for radical changes within a piece, and an option to avoid repeating oneself.

^ to be sure