Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Misinterpreting the term "prog"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Misinterpreting the term "prog"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Message
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2567
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Misinterpreting the term "prog"
    Posted: April 09 2013 at 09:40
To a musician with years of experience, progression is the growth of your abilities and talents like a fine wine. Progressive is to play "Progressive" which would suggest many aspects to the expanding growth of a  musician that is schooled. After expanding into ethnic styles, Classical music, traditional Folk and Jazz ..it is now up to you to expand yourself. You are schooled and can play many complex pieces, but how will you add the music to your own vocabulary. What is your version/concept of expression through the styles of music mentioned above? This is the most important developmental stage of a musician and the meaning or purpose is to be progressive. The reason Punk doesn't get tagged/mentioned in the same breath as Prog is directly to blame on the old school complexity of musicianship. 
I don't believe the Punk society was completely anti-prog. They seemed to follow the ENID around in the early days when the band engaged in strictly instrumental Classical Rock. According to history within the music industry..Punk closed the doors on Prog. Prog was huge in the media for years , but Punk changed the attitudes of the youth. Just as the attitudes of the youth changed during the "Glam Rock" period with Bowie, T.Rex, Roxy Music and even prior to that with Velvet Underground. Syd Barrett was influential to Punk Rock..although he often slammed the door when the Punks hunted him down. I believe the hard feelings musicians had for Punk revolved around the loss of freedom to play progressive along with having radio airplay, record contract, and massive touring. Every progressive outstanding musician I knew from 1974 to 1980 was livid about it. This was a real scene and not something you read in a book where I've found mistakes and mis-quotes because the person writing the book did not grow up in that period , misunderstands concepts or a certain ideology and it's impossible for them to grab a true "hands on" experience and so their book is fringe play.
 
In the progressive world of musicians dating from '68 with Family's Music in a Doll's House through to the bitter end with ELP Love Beach , the attitude of interest was mainly to add music of other cultures to Rock. It was a challenge for musicians to not only play something to perfection, but to write a score themselves. The money was there and over time it's status built and extended to events like California Jam. Punk destroyed all opportunities for a prog musician to continue a worthy career in music. That's a fact that should be accepted for it is part of music industry history and forget all the other points to justify what is relevant with an emotional rise to form a different opinion and simply accept the reality of why progressive musicians hated Punk. To be honest, I never hated Punk..but every great musician around me did for decades and  it's impossible to question the evident in this case.
  

Edited by TODDLER - April 09 2013 at 09:47
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11385
Post Options Post Options   Quote Blacksword Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 10:01
Originally posted by chopper

Originally posted by chamberry

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?

 

In what way was punk a musical progression from prog?


Punk was 'Reg Rock' 'Regressive Rock'

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2360
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 10:16
Originally posted by Blacksword

Originally posted by chopper

Originally posted by chamberry

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?

 

In what way was punk a musical progression from prog?


Punk was 'Reg Rock' 'Regressive Rock'



Agreed. It wasn't even novel or innovative, just a rehash of late 60s MC5 and The Stooges.
Please pay a visit to my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
Back to Top
Vibrationbaby View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 13 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6898
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vibrationbaby Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 15:45
I'm  going to try and not lose any sleep about this tonight.

Edited by Vibrationbaby - April 09 2013 at 15:45
                
Back to Top
kaptcha View Drop Down
Forum Newbie (< 5 posts)
Forum Newbie (< 5 posts)
Avatar

Joined: April 09 2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Post Options Post Options   Quote kaptcha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 16:32
Hi there, I hope you donīt mind I post a question inside this post but I cannot create topics; The thing is that I m trying to go ahead with a black sabbath-like underground band around Spain; it is the first time I try to arrange a lyric in english ( I got another project singing in spanish ) so I would like to check out if it is understandable for you ( english-speakers opinion needed! ), donīt care too much about the music; just a quick demo playing over drumbox, could you please help me?. Tnks a million!.
http://grmr.bandcamp.com/
Back to Top
HolyMoly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl and Canterbury Teams

Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20015
Post Options Post Options   Quote HolyMoly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 17:02
Right now, my lunch is progressing to my small intestines.  Can't wait to see what this will lead to.
My other avatar is a Porsche / RARE GOAT bandcamp page

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
Back to Top
wilmon91 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 634
Post Options Post Options   Quote wilmon91 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 18:03
I believe many genres are formed out of innovative thinking, and new technology, so it's an initial progressive step. But once the genre has been formed and defined, it doesn't continue to evolve and change character. Punk became stagnant very quickly. But it redefined the rules of pop and rock music. The problem with the word genre is that by defining something you define limits. Progressiveness is supposed to be limitless, and in many ways it was/is/can be. All those artists wasn't moving in the same direction, they were moving in different directions. They wanted to expand the definition of rock/pop, not create one new genre. So if you want to define prog rock as a genre , it will naturally be difficult. But that's the point, that's why it is progressive.

Making music "in the style of prog", emulating some band/s, must be called prog, but it doesn't represent the nature of what prog originally was.  I believe it is to try to be forward-looking, even if it can be hard in these days, and explore sounds, making use of influences without trying to sound like them, and creating something fairly original. I believe classical training or other advanced musical fields can be a great influence or tool to fuse with pop/rock elements.

Edited by wilmon91 - April 09 2013 at 18:05
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5512
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2013 at 19:21
^^^  The problem with prog rock IS that it is called progressive rock.   The word itself creates expectations and that is reasonable.  If it was called something like art rock or pomp rock or what have you, the idea of prog rock as only a genre of imitation of 70s artists would be more easily accepted.
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2013 at 17:29
Look, its "Prog" not "Progressive". in the 90s, we froze the term. Bunch of us wanted to talk about our favorite, long-abused bands from the 70s on usenet. We had style-prudes coming in all the time saying that alt.music.progressive really should change its name since musical tastes stuck back in the 70s wasn't all that "progressive". (Argument by Equivocation, beautiful!)

The newsgroup name stayed, but we prog fans agreed that we would not fret these more-progressive-and-current-than-thou prudes anymore and just call it "prog". It's a derivative of music that once was viewed as "progressive"--or at least sold that way. It's also rock, a certain genre of pop, as well.  

-John
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2013 at 17:44
New wave came in when selling a new look or style--or video presence became more important than creating music. I don't think the same of Peter Gabriel, who help shape the course of New Wave. Punk was more about attitude and rebellion than music. "Progressed" but not in terms of music

Some of us aren't as interested in image or attitude or rebellion--or even if we are we have a equal or greater side of us that just likes music.

You can say that music itself has been stuck in a rut for years, using the same 12 notes over and over again. Fine, but I'm not likely to listen to 20 minutes of cat-screeching because it's hipper than "stale" notes and not that many people do it. Some people like to move beyond music and make it "sound" so that they can "innovate" by throwing other stuff in there. Not that I dislike all forms of this "innovation" but, if I'm going to listen, it needs to have a consistency that I identify as music. 

The tyranny of mood, fashion, and style is a hype of its own. But an attachment to the underlying forms of music is what creates the corpus of what we "prog" fans share among ourselves. I like some new wave, but if you step away from it, it was selling image and style. Again punk made people feel vital and that you neglected them at your own peril. But it's all show and its' not a lot music
-John
Back to Top
ProgressiveMike View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: December 21 2012
Location: ColoradoSprings
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 44
Post Options Post Options   Quote ProgressiveMike Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2013 at 20:45
Stop being a prog denier. Lol. Prog rock is the apple jacks of music man. It doesn't taste like apples. Everyone has their own means of defining what is and what isn't prog rock, but Punk is certainly a regressive rock. There is nothing progressive about; "Beat on the brat! Beat on the brat! Beat on the brat with a baseball bat! Oh-yeah!" Although there might indeed be something progressive in; "This is a public service announcement.... WITH GUITAR!" Just like Primus, long as I've denied it, is certainly a prog rock band. Let'e face it. The influence of bands like Rush is obvious with other influences like the Residents and Peter Gabriel. Well more than Peter Gabriel I think it was the Tony Levin influence, who of course was a memeber of King Crimson during Discipline (undoubtedly a huge influence on the Primus sound, not to discount The Talking Drum from Lark's Tongue In Aspic) and played bass for Peter Gabriel. Alot of people deny what can be considered as modern prog by calling it something different. Go listen to the Flaming Lips, then hate yourself because it's prog as hell. At least my favorite albums The Soft Bulletin (which can actually crush a fragile and drug induced mind as it is a beautiful comment on life and death) or Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots ( my favorite tracks being Approaching Pavonis mons By Balloon and One More Robot/Sympathy 3000-21 (which, by my own conclusion, may be about a vibrator)).
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5512
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2013 at 23:34
I wonder who's the 'we' in axeman's rants.  Certainly not me, by the looks of it.  Exclusion continues to be very attractive more than 40 years since John Lennon wrote Imagine, it seems.  
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 00:55
Originally posted by rogerthat

I wonder who's the 'we' in axeman's rants.  Certainly not me, by the looks of it.  Exclusion continues to be very attractive more than 40 years since John Lennon wrote Imagine, it seems.  
That's funny. You're pretty oblivious to your own exclusionary behavior, then. Because most people you can think of are somehow not part of my "we". You probably can't recognize the irony of excluding people like me from whatever you consider your group of non-exclusives.The whole purpose of that statement is to say that I'm not part of your little group of respectables, because I said something you can't identify with. 

We can probably agree on some music though, because music is reactive and doesn't take a coherent position or consistent logical application. 

"We" the people who shortened the name to "prog" because we didn't want to get into the "that's not as progressive as music that I pride myself in liking" argument, and just wanted to talk about a style of music. 

I mean do you realize how often conversations about our favorite bands, and what other bands we might like to try, were broken up by the "why do you listen to that music" kind of guys? Guys who would come into a usenet newsgroup and argue about whether or not you should call it that--like the founders of the news group had stolen their name or something. Like they had just awoke to find squatters on their property. Like you had to pass their muster to call your music, something that it had previously been known by. 

Of course, it probably escapes you how exclusionary all that more-progressive-than-thou crap is. 

I will reiterate it's "prog" not "progressive" because it's ground that some of us (happy?) gave up years ago, because we were more interested in talking about music we liked than fighting over a disputed territory or a coveted term for our music. I'm pretty sure that's why people with this interest use that four-letter word a lot more than they do "progressive". "prog" is a type of music, "progressive" is an assertion about an effect of the music. 

If you guys want to fight this war all over again, in a place called "ProgArchives" (a place where people talk about music they like--just like ProgRock radio was a place that people listened to music they liked.) I guess that's your preference. Sure a couple of people can tell you "'Prog" is different from 'progressive'", but I don't see that they  elaborate that difference. I did. 
-John
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7636
Post Options Post Options   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:06
Originally posted by HolyMoly

Right now, my lunch is progressing to my small intestines.  Can't wait to see what this will lead to.


Brilliant.

The sort of post that is completely wasted on some of the undeserving swine that congregate hereabouts

Clap
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:24
Originally posted by ProgressiveMike

Go listen to the Flaming Lips, then hate yourself because it's prog as hell.
I like the Flaming Lips. And as much as I enjoy Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, the Lips still seem mainly pop--innovative pop perhaps, interesting pop, definitely. 

I like A Spoonful Weighs a Ton, but it's good regardless of what label I put on it. But I have to admit that even from She Don't Use Jelly something about Coyne's slide-work has seemed evocative of prog, if nothing else. Just a year back or so, I spent a whole night on Youtube listening to nothing but Lips songs. We would anybody hate themselves over whether or not some good music has the label prog or not. 

However, I know one thing, a majority of people who enjoy the Flaming Lips as "Alternative" aren't going to have nearly as many things in their collection that I'll find interesting as somebody who identifies with "prog" and just happens to enjoy the Lips. 
-John
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:30
Originally posted by rogerthat

If it was called something like art rock or pomp rock or what have you, the idea of prog rock as only a genre of imitation of 70s artists would be more easily accepted.
Really? Because nobody would ever covet the name "art" for their music, right? Ermm

"What makes copying bands from the 70s 'art'? Gosh! You guys are so unreasonable to call your music what you call it!"
-John
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5512
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:43
Originally posted by axeman

Originally posted by rogerthat

I wonder who's the 'we' in axeman's rants.  Certainly not me, by the looks of it.  Exclusion continues to be very attractive more than 40 years since John Lennon wrote Imagine, it seems.  
That's funny. You're pretty oblivious to your own exclusionary behavior, then. Because most people you can think of are somehow not part of my "we". You probably can't recognize the irony of excluding people like me from whatever you consider your group of non-exclusives.The whole purpose of that statement is to say that I'm not part of your little group of respectables, because I said something you can't identify with. 

We can probably agree on some music though, because music is reactive and doesn't take a coherent position or consistent logical application. 

"We" the people who shortened the name to "prog" because we didn't want to get into the "that's not as progressive as music that I pride myself in liking" argument, and just wanted to talk about a style of music. 

I mean do you realize how often conversations about our favorite bands, and what other bands we might like to try, were broken up by the "why do you listen to that music" kind of guys? Guys who would come into a usenet newsgroup and argue about whether or not you should call it that--like the founders of the news group had stolen their name or something. Like they had just awoke to find squatters on their property. Like you had to pass their muster to call your music, something that it had previously been known by. 

Of course, it probably escapes you how exclusionary all that more-progressive-than-thou crap is. 

I will reiterate it's "prog" not "progressive" because it's ground that some of us (happy?) gave up years ago, because we were more interested in talking about music we liked than fighting over a disputed territory or a coveted term for our music. I'm pretty sure that's why people with this interest use that four-letter word a lot more than they do "progressive". "prog" is a type of music, "progressive" is an assertion about an effect of the music. 

If you guys want to fight this war all over again, in a place called "ProgArchives" (a place where people talk about music they like--just like ProgRock radio was a place that people listened to music they liked.) I guess that's your preference. Sure a couple of people can tell you "'Prog" is different from 'progressive'", but I don't see that they  elaborate that difference. I did. 


I was interested in the tone of your original comment.  Once again, who's the we here?  There are plenty of prog rock fans across the world and you are attempting to decide on their behalf what it should be called.  I have the option not to agree with you and I choose not to.  I was first introduced to the term progressive rock and not prog rock and, no, I didn't grow up in the 70s.  Forums like these are probably the only places where the abbreviation prog has come to mean something else...er, 'we' don't even know what it really means because 'we' insist it doesn't expand to progressive.  If you had read my earlier comments, you'd have known that I do not insist on only music that progresses as being recognized as prog rock.  But I have to point out that the term itself creates these expectations so to later on insist that prog has nothing to do with progressive is a contradiction.   It is not for 'we' to insist what this music should be called.  People can call it what they want, yes, they can. 

Originally posted by axeman


Fine, but I'm not likely to listen to 20 minutes of cat-screeching because it's hipper than "stale" notes and not that many people do it.



It's not about your likes or dislikes.  If 'we' try to bend the name of a genre to suit our likes and dislikes, it would be utter chaos.  A widely used genre term doesn't HAVE to conform to your personal understanding of it.  I am sure you'd easily find 70s prog rock bands that you don't like, so likes and dislikes are irrelevant.   It may be that what you dub cat screeching actually has musical qualities shared with 70s prog but your tastes bias you against recognizing this, so that's dangerously unreliable.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5512
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:47
Originally posted by axeman

Originally posted by rogerthat

If it was called something like art rock or pomp rock or what have you, the idea of prog rock as only a genre of imitation of 70s artists would be more easily accepted.
Really? Because nobody would ever covet the name "art" for their music, right? Ermm

"What makes copying bands from the 70s 'art'? Gosh! You guys are so unreasonable to call your music what you call it!"


No, because art rock already has a wider usage and is typically applied to rock bands or artists who don't fit the electric guitar, drums, blood and sweat straitjacket.  Acts like David Bowie or Kate Bush.   I am sure that for some prog rock elitists, that would be as serious a downgrade as Cyrpus being cut down to junk but to me, prog rock broadly fits in the art rock basket.   Again, I am not trying to exclude to find out why it cannot be art rock....only focusing on what qualities art rock has that you don't find in typical, out and out rock music.   Since art rock understood this way is only a stylistic notion and not one that focuses on progression or innovation, it would be easier to avoid controversy as to what can  be included in art rock and what cannot.  

Also, an act of expression through a chosen medium (could be music, could be painting, could be cinema) is art so, yes, imitation can indeed be art.   What is 'so' art about is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder.


Edited by rogerthat - April 13 2013 at 01:49
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 03:15
Originally posted by rogerthat

I was interested in the tone of your original comment.  Once again, who's the we here?  There are plenty of prog rock fans across the world and you are attempting to decide on their behalf what it should be called.
I think you have it precisely backward. I'm giving perspective of my understanding of why it's called "prog". Where exactly do I say what you have to call it? 

But it's silly to say that you're going to call it "progressive" and then complain that...no...it's not actually progressive enough. You don't have to call it "prog", you can call it "Shoe music" or "squigglies", but people won't be able to locate that as fast as "prog" which has nearly a 20-year tradition behind it. 

"We" as I have elaborated in various iterations was the population of the usenet group alt.music.progressive that cared to discuss whether or not we would contend for the name "progressive". There was a brainstorming session consisting of at least a week, and then people said (I was one) why not shorten the name to "prog". It's just a identification tag, not a claim.

And if the word "prog" is the internet term, forged for the very reason that I suggested it was, to avoid contention without those who wanted the term for their own music preferences, then unpacking "progressive" from "prog" is the type of thing that that term exists to avoid. (Now to understand that last sentence, think what the word "if" means, I'm not pontificating, I'm filling in an understanding of where the term originates.)  And again, mainly for the purpose of putting one brand of music that somebody else enjoys as more legitimate or whatever than the type of music that your group may have derived its own name to simply serve as a marker for others of similar tastes. 

Originally posted by rogerthat

I have the option not to agree with you and I choose not to.
No you don't. You are bound by the tatters of the King in Yellow to agree with me. Ermm

Originally posted by rogerthat

I was first introduced to the term progressive rock and not prog rock...Forums like these are probably the only places where the abbreviation prog has come to mean something else
Then perhaps it's your misunderstanding in equating the two. Perhaps the person who calls prog rock "progressive rock"
thinks Yes and 70s prog are "progressive" in some sort of universal standard--or really doesn't care. Being that you can't control--and hey, I'll admit it--I can't either--what people construe as what. But you come into a group and suddenly they're calling the same thing that your friend called "progressive" "prog" and you think it's simply an abbreviation. I can try harder to bind your mind, but I don't know who told you that it was simply an abbreviation either (if you let me know, I can try to bind their mind as well.) 

Originally posted by rogerthat

Originally posted by axeman

Fine, but I'm not likely to listen to 20 minutes of cat-screeching because it's hipper than "stale" notes and not that many people do it.


It's not about your likes or dislikes.  If 'we' try to bend the name of a genre to suit our likes and dislikes, it would be utter chaos.
This is another place where I think you have it precisely backward. It's not about bending the name. It has an identified name: "prog", it's you who are extending it. To, as I see it, pick a fight from 20 years ago that it's not a good enough name for the genre you chose to describe with it, or people aren't being true to their claim to like "progressive" music if they don't like the same stuff you think better fits the name "progressive". 


[QUOTE=rogerthat]A widely used genre term doesn't HAVE to conform to your personal understanding of it. [/QUOTE]Again, backwards--and ironic, because you're arguing that because you can't unpack "progressive" from the name "prog" and restart an argument from 20 years ago so you can disagree with the claim your straw man is making. 

[QUOTE=rogerthat]I am sure you'd easily find 70s prog rock bands that you don't like[/QUOTE]Not even germane to the discussion.

[QUOTE=rogerthat] It may be that what you dub cat screeching actually has musical qualities shared with 70s prog but your tastes bias you against recognizing this, so that's dangerously unreliable.[/QUOTE]See, so quick to criticize that you couldn't even consider what I "dubbed" cat screeching might have actually referred to the picture in my mind of an actual physical cat, of the genus felis, actually physically screeching and somebody actually physically recording such a thing because "nobody else does it". 

Look, if we can unpack "progressive" from "prog" then why can't we unpack "progression" or "progress" from "progressive". And then, in calling some music "progressive" and not another, wouldn't that be guilty of "deciding for everyone" what moves music forward? What gives you the right to tell everybody which way is forward? 

What I don't think you understand is that in your argument style there are as many pitfalls as points to make. But in an everybody-is-right-in-their-own-way world, where its' authoritarian to give names to things unless they prove themselves objectively so (and then, who gets to decide when it's "proven"?), "progress" is what a group of people want it to mean. If people don't want to go in that direction, it's not "progress". In fact, the only thing you'll be able to point is that it's changed--so why not call it "changed music" instead of progressive? 

When you realize that people like the implication of "progress", then you realize why you can't just call it "changed music". No, it has to be "progress", or there is not the prestige.

My point is that maybe early-70s progressive is great because it moved music a little bit off its center, but didn't topple it--like the musical theorist who gives you a book of textures and whatever music you think of when you feel the textures is the music of that "piece". And perhaps it is good for music to be jostled from its center throughout the ages. But simply to say that because the genius of the past went in one direction, that ignoring whatever root it has, we must  simply trudge off to the horizon in a similar direction is not compelling. Thus the trick is to stay in a tension with the eternal form of music, not to endlessly "progress" simply because what we enjoy has been pushed in that direction.  


Edited by axeman - April 13 2013 at 03:18
-John
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5512
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2013 at 03:47
Originally posted by axeman

I think you have it precisely backward. I'm giving perspective of my understanding of why it's called "prog". Where exactly do I say what you have to call it?


Here:
Originally posted by axeman


Look, its "Prog" not "Progressive". in the 90s, we froze the term


Excuse me, froze?   You can call it what you want but you can't insist on your interpretation.   Prog never froze in my eyes or that of others.  Prog rock fests have had bands like DT or Opeth over, so I don't derive my understanding from a 'strawman' but from the contemporary position of prog. 
Originally posted by axeman

But it's silly to say that you're going to call it "progressive" and then complain that...no...it's not actually progressive enough. You don't have to call it "prog", you can call it "Shoe music" or "squigglies", but people won't be able to locate that as fast as "prog" which has nearly a 20-year tradition behind it.


I am not saying that you have to call it that.  That is what it is called in general, apart from the aforesaid usenet group.

Originally posted by rogerthat

Then perhaps it's your misunderstanding in equating the two. Perhaps the person who calls prog rock "progressive rock" thinks Yes and 70s prog are "progressive" in some sort of universal standard--or really doesn't care. Being that you can't control--and hey, I'll admit it--I can't either--what people construe as what. But you come into a group and suddenly they're calling the same thing that your friend called "progressive" "prog" and you think it's simply an abbreviation. I can try harder to bind your mind, but I don't know who told you that it was simply an abbreviation either (if you let me know, I can try to bind their mind as well.)


It is not A person who told me, that is what PA says.  Progressive rock.  You can read the word at the top of the website or the forum.  It is a progressive rock music resource, not 'prog'.  Just because your usenet group has some different understanding of it, you cannot pretend that I am coming from Mars with some farfetched notion of prog rock (which is how you make it sound).  On the other hand, the way I use prog rock is the most common usage.  Whether on websites or on person, I have always heard prog rock fans address it as only an abbreviation of progressive rock. 


Originally posted by axeman

This is another place where I think you have it precisely backward. It's not about bending the name. It has an identified name: "prog", it's you who are extending it. To, as I see it, pick a fight from 20 years ago that it's not a good enough name for the genre you chose to describe with it, or people aren't being true to their claim to like "progressive" music if they don't like the same stuff you think better fits the name "progressive".


And prog derives from progressive rock, so I don't have it backwards at all.  It is you who insist that prog should be the only usage and it should be unbundled from progressive rock.  I have no problem at all with both 70s prog or its contemporary imitations being bundled together with other progressive rock music.  Your usenet group conclusion is not some Magna Carta of prog that the rest have to abide by it.   In any case, this is the forum of progarchives, not alt.progressive so 'your' rules don't apply here.  


Originally posted by rogerthat

Again, backwards--and ironic, because you're arguing that because you can't unpack "progressive" from the name "prog" and restart an argument from 20 years ago so you can disagree with the claim your straw man is making.


It is not a question of unpacking, it is what it is.  Once again, "Ultimate Progressive Rock Discography"....the guidelines describe what is progressive rock.   It has never been unbundled.  Rather, music in the vein of 70s progressive rock as well as new progressive rock are all recognized as progressive rock, prog/prog rock in short.  


Originally posted by axeman

Not even germane to the discussion.


It is.  What if cat screeching was recorded by a well recognized prog rock band from the 70s?  What would you say to that?  There is sort of a parallel to that:  Seamus.  What exactly do your preferences in music have to do with what it is called in general?

Originally posted by axeman

See, so quick to criticize that you couldn't even consider what I "dubbed" cat screeching might have actually referred to the picture in my mind of an actual physical cat, of the genus felis, actually physically screeching and somebody actually physically recording such a thing because "nobody else does it".



Addressed above.  A great composer once said that even a dog's bark could be music and it could be that he did have Seamus in mind.  If there is some music within your favourite 'label' that doesn't appeal at all to your tastes and in fact repels you, let it go, don't listen to it.  You can't try to draw lines in the sand to exclude it. 

Originally posted by axeman

Look, if we can unpack "progressive" from "prog" then why can't we unpack "progression" or "progress" from "progressive". And then, in calling some music "progressive" and not another, wouldn't that be guilty of "deciding for everyone" what moves music forward? What gives you the right to tell everybody which way is forward? 


I never said anything about progression at all.   I only said the name progressive rock suggests progress, which means we keep having this same old discussion over and over once every few years.  Why are some people so obstinate in refusing to concede that the term itself creates this confusion and it's totally not down to low intelligence levels or lack of awareness of listeners? And that is why I have argued for art rock as an alternative label which might avoid some of this confusion.

Originally posted by axeman

What I don't think you understand is that in your argument style there are as many pitfalls as points to make. But in an everybody-is-right-in-their-own-way world, where its' authoritarian to give names to things unless they prove themselves objectively so (and then, who gets to decide when it's "proven"?), "progress" is what a group of people want it to mean. If people don't want to go in that direction, it's not "progress". In fact, the only thing you'll be able to point is that it's changed--so why not call it "changed music" instead of progressive?

When you realize that people like the implication of "progress", then you realize why you can't just call it "changed music". No, it has to be "progress", or there is not the prestige.

My point is that maybe early-70s progressive is great because it moved music a little bit off its center, but didn't topple it--like the musical theorist who gives you a book of textures and whatever music you think of when you feel the textures is the music of that "piece". And perhaps it is good for music to be jostled from its center throughout the ages. But simply to say that because the genius of the past went in one direction, that ignoring whatever root it has, we must  simply trudge off to the horizon in a similar direction is not compelling. Thus the trick is to stay in a tension with the eternal form of music, not to endlessly "progress" simply because what we enjoy has been pushed in that direction.  


Irrelevant, because I have said over and over that I recognize both new progressive rock music and music in the vein of old prog as progressive rock.  The simple fact is you have a major problem with bundling both together even though on a place like PA, they are further sub divided into categories that avoid overlap for the most part.  New prog rock music typically slots in Prog metal or Post rock while symph prog continues to be called symph prog.  


Edited by rogerthat - April 13 2013 at 03:48
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.