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  <12345 6>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5662
Post Options Post Options   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Misinterpreting the term "prog"
    Posted: April 15 2013 at 14:53
Originally posted by uduwudu

...
So progressive is the incorporation of musical ideas that are extended from stated verse ofr chorus ideaswithin and then beyond standard rock.

Punk was regressive, new wave was the progressive from of punk as ambition in music cannot be stultified even by reactionary rock types (punk, grunge, 80s pop or the latest "classic" rock format - a comfort zone marketing device).
...
 
Still that is way too simplistic, as there are just as many simple things in "progressive" music as there are anywhere else. The difference lies in its CONTEXT, and what the music works for and around with ... and the time and place where this came up gave it a social theme that helped identify and explain what the music was about.
 
Thus, the punk, or the rap thing, are not regressive, since they are a part of the same folks that you and I were a part of ... and we should not punish them for their ideas ... it is "progressive" in their very own way ... just not what, GENERALLY, would be considered an "artistic" path.
 
One other matter is the objective versus subjective appraisal. Very often someone thinks "it's good.  I like it". or the opposite for the matter.
...
 
To be able to define this as "MUSIC" that we want to make it important in the annals of music history, the appraisal has to go a bit further than the simplistic and totally subjective conversations that take place here ... but saying that music is "progressive" because the player is using a Ricky, is as bad and off the wall, and the type of discussion that will render this back to the kindergarten of what music is ... an instrument does NOT music define ... the PERSON and the WORK do! And we have to stop thinking of those kinds of idiocies that degenerate the intelligent studies and work about the solid music and work that was created by many folks ... to me, the YES, JT's, the ELP's and many others were the "classical music" of my time ... and some of the work they did was VASTLY superior musically, than a lot of classical music ... and I respect them as such.
 
There is no mis-interpretation of progressive, or prog. Only people that do not get off the "fan" stuff ... too much make up I guess! Embarrassed  ... and a lot of this is easily shown when you can take a piece or two from Gentle Giant, and many times you will find that the composition sense and design is far superior to almost 1600 to 1700 years of known music ... but the rock and bs fans do not have a historical sense or background to have any idea, how IMPORTANT that should be, but is being ignored because of the band they like so much! Doesn't mean I have to love GG, it's not one of my favorites, but the musical sense and design is out of this world and I have a solid appreciation for that just like I did for Frank Zappa 40 years before most people ever heard Penguins swimming around in the bondage of the progressive "definition" with the PA fans!  Confused


Edited by moshkito - April 15 2013 at 15:07
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com
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 15 2013 at 13:13
Originally posted by The Mystical

I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.


There are only a few real progressive rock bands anyway. It was really a phenomenom that died out around '74 or '75. By this time it had really more or less runit's course. The rest was rehash or something else. I heard an interview with Fish on a Montréal FM station back in '82 or '83 when they played here for the first time and he downplayed this progressive rock thing. He was actually saying that the band owed a lot to punk. I was at the show and it was like seeing Rush. There were tons of Rush heads there.

So, I guess like a lot of bands that fall under this unfortunate and inaccurate label. There was an article about the latest inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ( shame? ) and the journalist listed some bands who should never be inducted and referred to "progressive" rock as niether. I think he hit the nail on the head sort of unintentionally. It's just mish mash music. Let's just bolt anything regarless of style, rhythm, time signature, tempo and then put it to confusing lyrics and then the kids will go for it. That was the axiom back in the seventies. I guess it helped that guys like Emerson, the Shulman Brothers and others were learned musicians with at least some formal training.

Of all the prog bands I think Focus was just about the only one or one of the few  who really nailed the concept. They even mocked themselves with the novelty track Hocus Pocus. It was a fool around track that started with the drummer Pierre van der Linden smashing around on the kit with  Jan Akkerman throwing in a riff and then Van Leer adding some bizarre yodelling. Just read that this weekend in a book I found in my library that had an interview with TvL from the early seventies.









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

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 11:24
Originally posted by rogerthat

I got you the first time round, I know you are referring to the term.  But if you freeze the term prog from progressive rock, that implies that you have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons.
Does. not. follow, ...other than trivially. 

All terms worthy of the name, exclude things. But as a marker , it excludes nothing definitively. You understand what a "definition" is don't you. It means it has limits(fine). That we must talk in words and words must have landing points called definitions, never implies that things aren't in many cases, continuous and fluid. 

That's one of the hard part about critical discussion, for emphasis and control of scope we must chop things up smaller than they might otherwise be construed to be. You can put one thing in a separate bulletpoint, but it doesn't mean it's totally unrelated to the other bulletpoints. 

Mainly, the thing that "prog" excludes is some sort of claim that this body of music is "progressive" by whatever critical standards of "progress". It's not meant to exclude music, but the unnecessary claim that each person who enjoys prog is a fan of whatever is deemed to be "progressive" at the time. 

But let's take your inanity on its face. You must mean certain things and not others when you say "progressive rock" because otherwise you wouldn't take Opeth or Dream Theater to be more indicative of progressive rock/music then say, The Fixx. Because if you exclude The Fixx then you "have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons." It's a bad start when you say that excluding something from a category for some unspecified reason is questionable. 

But, if that makes me bad, then it make you bad. If it makes me exclusive, then it makes you exclusive. If you can't exclude any band or music from the term "progressive", then DT and Opeth aren't particular examples of "progressive rock", because all exclusion can be called into question to be in the same "judgmental" vein that you are implying. 

Now, I have no doubts that you can misconstrue a beaut out of that, since almost everything you have read into what I have written has been your own invention. 
-John
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5532
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 11:16
Originally posted by tamijo

Originally posted by King Crimson776

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock.
Naa, Punk is not the same as rock, punk is a part of rock, if you listen to basic rock bands from the early 60 to mid 60's, like Beatles Stones Kinks Animals Yardsbirds ect. ect, they sound nothing like Dead Kennedys or Six Pistols.
Actualy they sound very diffrent, just as diffrent as they do from Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, ect. 

He is right that it is rock but then you could just as well argue that Elvis Priesley was rock of some sort and thereby discount the entire Beatles-led revolution.  It is very different; the attitude changed pretty drastically.  And attitude is not just something social...it reflects in the music, through the emotions.  There was something no holds barred about punk aggression, maybe not so noticeable in the early punk rock but more so in its offshoots, like at no other time before in rock.   And hand in hand began the search for guitar tones that may not have been favoured in classic rock but were useful to convey these new flavours, the complicated (!) riffs, etc.  Unfortunately, the attitude is also its weakness and I think a lot of potential in punk-based ideas remains unfulfilled because they have to try so hard to make it not-prog. 
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5532
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 10:28
Originally posted by axeman

Then I say "it's [the term is] 'Prog' not 'Progressive'" aand that we froze the term, and you twice site that as evidence that I'm trying to mandate a term for that item. You can't just site the part of the text that you repeatedly misinterpret as proof that somebody said something you interpretted. A "term" applies to the term, and not necessarily the item it refers to.



I got you the first time round, I know you are referring to the term.  But if you freeze the term prog from progressive rock, that implies that you have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons.  And that is what I referred to.  I don't agree at all that it is as discontinuous as you are making it out to be.  Can you name some bands that are included in progressive rock - barring genres like prog related or crossover - but don't have anything to do with according to you?  It is ok if you don't see it my way, but you pointedly said that "it's prog, not progressive" as if there is something mistaken about the usage progressive rock.  And that is what I am objecting to.   We will all individually make up our minds about what we want to call it but there's nothing assertive about "it".  It's not a "this or that" and, sorry, but your idea of prog as NOT being an abbreviation of progressive rock is not as widely recognised as you think it is.  

Originally posted by axeman

And, DT was considered by the hip alternative crowd as a throwback to 70s pretention, so it was hardly "progressive" in a sense that would have been unobjectionable to everybody.


So who is this hip alternative crowd, what do they say and what bearing do any of their views have on this discussion anyway?   There are too many assumptions in the way you are setting out your viewpoints.  I do not know anything about altprogressive and am not inclined to find out and least of all about what keyboard warriors from either side, be they the hipsters or the purists, had to say about this topic on that website.   DT is widely recognized as progressive rock and at the same time is clearly seen as something distinct from 70s prog and bearing more relation to Rush, Queenrsyche and Metallica.  A lot of those who are fond of 70s prog get off on DT because of the metal elements.   So it is a valid example of a contemporary prog rock band that represents a large measure of evolution from 70s prog.  
Originally posted by axeman


So I will grant that PA itself does not know how to stay out of this fight.



There is no fight per se because there is no hard and fast understanding of prog rock.  Too many branches of prog developed independently and indifferent of each other in different countries to view it as just a narrow scene restricted to its era.  Therefore PA allows any music that sounds heavily like prog rock from the 70s and progressive - as in innovative - rock music to the extent it fits with the website's requirements.   It, like most of us, recognises that this is extremely subjective.  You on the other hand are pretty insistent that prog should be decoupled from progressive as it no longer has anything to do with any progressive qualities.  I don't agree, that is, I don't see the need for this decoupling at all.   Prog rock originated as something of a progression on the rock music of the time, therefore music that progresses the rock of today also makes a good case for itself as does anything else that can be stylistically identified with whatever prog rock has been made up to this point.

Originally posted by axeman


Okay, so why does PA contain "Post-rock". How can something "post-rock" be "Progressive rock".


Duh, the same way as jazz rock can be progressive rock.   It doesn't have to have prog as a suffix (for in that case Zeuhl and Canterbury would be disqualified).   Secondly...

Originally posted by axeman


Somewhere we either have PA telling people who went to the trouble of calling it "post-rock" that whatever they think, it is rock, or they must consider it as rock, or it's PA branching out from "progressive rock" to things that share characteristics of classic progressive rock. And also fit the category that if you like some of the things like X you might like Y. So again, it mainly centers around people with similar tastes exchanging opinions about music.


No, it's not about what music somebody likes and would want to see on PA.  Rather, it's because not all post rock fits in progressive rock but some does and that music is sub categorised as prog rock.  You are looking at prog rock and post rock as mutually exclusive, while PA doesn't, that's the different.  Same with jazz rock, not all jazz rock would be accepted as prog here but some of it is.  Not all metal that gets called prog metal by metalheads would necessarily qualify here.   Qualification is based on subjective considerations of the sub genre teams but totally NOT on their likes and dislikes, rather on whether they can hear musical characteristics that, according to them, warrant inclusion in that sub genre.    


Back to Top
uduwudu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 17 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 983
Post Options Post Options   Quote uduwudu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 09:17
Originally posted by tamijo

If emotions dosent matter, and you should not reflect your associations, art becomes a studie, like mathematics.

How very boring and sad, because in that case You have lost all conections between the art, and the world it is reflecting. 
Originally posted by tamijo

[/QUOT


Not at all. Just that they should not become mixed up, merely identifiable, distinct. Especially if someone is communicating abstract ideas to others.

Clarity is all.
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site and Forum Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12972
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guldbamsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 08:36
Misinterpreting pork, or merely abstaining from it due to religion.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
axeman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2008
Location: Michigan, US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
Post Options Post Options   Quote axeman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 07:41
Originally posted by rogerthat

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
Which is a good deomonstration that you don't know how to marshal evidence to support a case. 

Read the title of this discussion: "Misinterpreting the term 'prog'". It's stating that it's a term. To which chamberry adds, as qualification: 
Originally posted by chamberry

Why do we take the term "prog rock" as being "progressive", that is to say, as if it was the only rock genre that progresses, that's evolved, that never stagnates, that's always new, different, from what "normal music" is?
Then I say "it's [the term is] 'Prog' not 'Progressive'" aand that we froze the term, and you twice site that as evidence that I'm trying to mandate a term for that item. You can't just site the part of the text that you repeatedly misinterpret as proof that somebody said something you interpretted. A "term" applies to the term, and not necessarily the item it refers to.

Originally posted by rogerthat

Excuse me, froze?  You can call it what you want but you can't insist on your interpretation.
That's rich coming from a guy who's now trying to imply that when he interprests "freeze a term" to mean mandate a term, it is evidence that "freeze a term" means just that. 

Originally posted by rogerthat

Prog never froze in my eyes or that of others.
Again, confusing a term for the referent. The term was frozen from "progressive". Again, this is about a term, not all possible nomenclature.

Originally posted by rogerthat

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.
And, DT was considered by the hip alternative crowd as a throwback to 70s pretention, so it was hardly "progressive" in a sense that would have been unobjectionable to everybody.

You're really not making your case. But you are right, PA does claim that prog is simply a shortening. 
Originally posted by PA

Progressive rock (often shortened to prog or prog rock) is a form of rock music that evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a "mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility.

However, even if we take that quote as a definition of "Prog", there are issues with then extending that to what chamberry implies that the word "progressive" implies. Becuase if it is simply whatever music was most progressive, than it simply was an evolution of music, itself, it would not be a form. The froth on the wave is the froth on the wave and not a "form". If Progressive Rock is granted as a form, then it is not simply whatever music is most progressive. What "form" could be taken from a specification of a music that "progresses" all the time? So even though it implies its a simple shortening, it is actually using the tag name "progressive" to indicate the same thing that "prog" does: A form originated at a certain time and context. Thus again, to unpack "progressive music" from that is needless. 

So I will grant that PA itself does not know how to stay out of this fight.

[QUOTE=rogerthat]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.
Okay, so why does PA contain "Post-rock". How can something "post-rock" be "Progressive rock". Somewhere we either have PA telling people who went to the trouble of calling it "post-rock" that whatever they think, it is rock, or they must consider it as rock, or it's PA branching out from "progressive rock" to things that share characteristics of classic progressive rock. And also fit the category that if you like some of the things like X you might like Y. So again, it mainly centers around people with similar tastes exchanging opinions about music. 

In that case, you don't need a manifesto that all your music is the most "progressive", just a tag for people to find it, and discuss musical tastes. And give hints to other people about what bands are similar to the ones they like. Such a tag was synthesized in the usenet newsgroup alt.music.progressive. It's called "prog". That term was frozen from the term "progressive" simply because a lot of the people who liked a certain style of music found alt.music.progressive under that name. As I mentioned before, the very layout of the site, the various facilities of the site are about people finding that general type of music based on things they already enjoy.  

-John
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3919
Post Options Post Options   Quote tamijo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 07:26

If emotions dosent matter, and you should not reflect your associations, art becomes a studie, like mathematics.

How very boring and sad, because in that case You have lost all conections between the art, and the world it is reflecting. 
Back to Top
uduwudu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 17 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 983
Post Options Post Options   Quote uduwudu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 07:05
Progressive rock means the musical progress of rock. Seems obvious but does seem to become distorted. Effectively this means the harmonic extensions of themes. That tnhis music is found in the context of rock confuses teh issue. Rock is usually regarded as pop (poular, populist). One can hear a tiune, dash home dig out one's guitar and figure a version of a song. This is yer basic roc / pop ideal. Not so easy to do when it's Heart of The Sunrise.

There are many recordings from Bowie's to ELP's that have more attention paid to the composition and the intentions of individuals that are outside the realm of the sing along pop number (which when they turn up and are not too daft) are well worth it. But these are usually disposable and part of a deliberate fashion.

Curiously the more in depth composition and arrangement in rock (the '70s prog era) involves these same zeit geist popular culture characteristics.

particularly amusing associations are the (inevitable) negative views of for example, Asia versus Yes. Asia incorporate standard symphonic prog rock harmonic principles but do 'em quick. Yes develop themes. Asia has choruses, Yes have refrains (a restatement of a theme e.f Heart of the Sunrise).

So progressive is the incorporation of musical ideas that are extended from stated verse ofr chorus ideaswithin and then beyond standard rock.

Punk was regressive, new wave was the progressive from of punk as ambition in music cannot be stultified even by reactionary rock types (punk, grunge, 80s pop or the latest "classic" rock format - a comfort zone marketing device).

One other matter is the objective versus subjective appraisal. Very often someone thinks "it's good.  I like it". or the opposite for the matter. Like either sentence has much to do with other. This is our perception and ego view becoming one when they should be separate. If some one likes, say 90125 does that mean someone can appraise it from an opinion. Probably not, Bt if we can't distinguish fact from fiction. Detached, even academic objective appraisal has got to be clear from happy memories (subjective emotional). Frankly who cares about my associations. What a review reader needs to know is who, what and how.

Academic? How very Rock and roll.  ;) Well, this is progressive rock. One has to move on and this is how it's done, musical development. Use of the little grey cell.

To be fair and readable it is good to have both but not a mash up.
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3919
Post Options Post Options   Quote tamijo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 05:21
Originally posted by King Crimson776

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock.
Naa, Punk is not the same as rock, punk is a part of rock, if you listen to basic rock bands from the early 60 to mid 60's, like Beatles Stones Kinks Animals Yardsbirds ect. ect, they sound nothing like Dead Kennedys or Six Pistols.
Actualy they sound very diffrent, just as diffrent as they do from Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, ect. 
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2013 at 01:29
C'mon, didn't they teach you basic set theory in your math class?





Edited by Gerinski - April 15 2013 at 03:04
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2488
Post Options Post Options   Quote King Crimson776 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 23:27
Originally posted by moshkito

Considering where music came from in its history and the whole upper class thing falling apart in the 20th century, in the end, "punk" is a complete polar opposite of classical music, and as such it has something to offer that is vastly different that could/should help improve the classical ideas.
 
...

All music scenes have some value to them ... in many ways the "punk" thing, just like "rap" is not quite a musical scene, as much as it is a "social" scene, in its words and expressions ... and sometimes, in my view of things, this tends to lessen the expression musically ... you're so emotionally involved in screaming at your friend, girlfriend, or mom, or dad, that you forget the music ... and how to play ... so to speak ... and this is NOT something that is acceptable in music definition and standards in its history!

True, punk was more a social movement than a musical one. The music itself could never, but I think the attitude of punk actually has influenced ultra-modern classical and jazz somewhat. I can't say I've been thrilled with the results, but some probably would say it's refreshing.
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2488
Post Options Post Options   Quote King Crimson776 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 23:07
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?
Wasn't synth pop a progress from the traditional way of playing music?
Wasn't industrial a progress from the strict definition of music?
Wasn't post-punk a progress from punk?
Wasn't metal a progress from the hard rock of the early 70's?
Wasn't techno a progress from the experimental, amoeba-like, electronic music from the krautrock era?

Whoa... slow down there. Punk was perhaps the first ever reactionary movement in music (and in that historical sense, quite important). Sure, it wasn't exactly the same as older rock n' roll, but it was far more similar than it was different. You seem to be confusing synth pop with the synthesizer itself (or, ok, early electronic 'classical'). Industrial was not at all the first music to "question what sounds could be considered music". Post-punk and techno are minor variations on previous styles. Out of those genres you mention, metal probably exerted itself most to be "diverse", but its attempts are inherently superficial due to its utterly repetitive nature, and it ends up almost as limited as the rest anyway. Besides, its roots were very close chronologically to those of progressive (then again so was punk, with MC5 etc).

So, of course, there has been some innovation since the early 70's. Someone vaguely mentioned some guitar techniques. That's cool. I do think progressive music was the logical endpoint for truly innovative music though. Never before that had popular music been so thoroughly fused with such seemingly disparate genres. Sure, modal jazz can be said to have taken in classical influence, but on a subtle level and not remotely to the same degree. After the original progressive (and I sometimes place the other eclectic rock styles that sprung from psychedelia like folk rock, jazz rock etc. in the same overall movement, progressive being the absolute furthest this idea could go) bands, I don't think any movements are big enough to be called a revolution of any kind.


Originally posted by tamijo

Yes, like with every other genre, it evolved, the idear that punk was just a () in rock music is absurd, it influenced wave, it evolved into hardcore, it fused with elements from ska ect. ect.
Many of the band that today would be referred to as alternative, from Bjørk, to Green Day, have roots in punk.
And seen from a prog view it's obvious to mention TMV, they came directly from a punk/hardcore background.

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock. Reggae and certain African styles fusing with rock was part of what constituted "new wave". I suppose those styles more easily gelled with the minimalist rock of that era, and Bjork's first band was certainly part of that. She quickly developed into her unique art pop style though, which derives itself more from progressive.
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain
Back to Top
dysoriented View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: February 24 2013
Location: BLIGHTY!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Post Options Post Options   Quote dysoriented Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 15:36
Originally posted by The Mystical

I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.


Haha, I'm with you, this is all so serious. Good music is good music, the label is just a bunch of letters :)
Back to Top
The Mystical View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Mystical Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 14:48
I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.
I am currently digging:

Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz!

Please drop me a message with album suggestions.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5662
Post Options Post Options   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 12:55
Originally posted by rogerthat

...
Really couldn't agree more.  Punk is indispensable to the developments in rock music (and even some pop) since the 80s onwards.  But then plenty of progsters hate MUSIC that doesn't have a 1979 or older date on it Tongue so it's not surprising they'd want to play down punk.  Also, things like burning effigies of Emerson were very disgusting and that has probably permanently turned the prog rock crowd off punk.  Music is not about hate, you shouldn't do things like that even for fun. 
Considering where music came from in its history and the whole upper class thing falling apart in the 20th century, in the end, "punk" is a complete polar opposite of classical music, and as such it has something to offer that is vastly different that could/should help improve the classical ideas. Jazz is the same thing, with the exception that some people think that jazz is for hip people and punk is for street people ... and a lot of jazz in Europe is not as formulated as the one you find in NY City or San Francisco, where after a while you just want to leave and go get laid ... oooopppppssss ... drunk ... because it is so tiresome and full of itself, just like the classical counterparts!
 
The dislike between punk, for the most part, was its simplistic style of music that was more fit for beginning kids in music, than it was by bonafide musicians. Few people would argue that the technical design and ability in YES in its first 2 or 3 years, was vastly "superior" (at least in academic and detail terms!), than what a punk band was offering ... but the freshness of the attitude and total raw element of its design, is something that even the "progressive" bands can learn from, and actually avoided.
 
All music scenes have some value to them ... in many ways the "punk" thing, just like "rap" is not quite a musical scene, as much as it is a "social" scene, in its words and expressions ... and sometimes, in my view of things, this tends to lessen the expression musically ... you're so emotionally involved in screaming at your friend, girlfriend, or mom, or dad, that you forget the music ... and how to play ... so to speak ... and this is NOT something that is acceptable in music definition and standards in its history!
 
Thus the value, could easily be questioned, when the definition of progressive music is so mundane as to separate it into simple mechanics, at which point, punk has just as many mechanics, just different ones! ... .I'm not sure that we can see this when we're trying to compare things ... which leads to the same thing we do here, and I can be very guilty at times, when the definition is made strictly by fans, and not people that have a very good sense and history of music to see what the concept is about ... not understanding the conceptual basis and songs in ITCOTKC only means that you are missing out on what helped progressive come alive ... and it is something that still befuddles many and that understanding reduces the music to nothing but just another ... different ... punk!
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5532
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:57
Originally posted by tamijo

Yes, like with every other genre, it evolved, the idear that punk was just a () in rock music is absurd, it influenced wave, it evolved into hardcore, it fused with elements from ska ect. ect.
Many of the band that today would be referred to as alternative, from Bjørk, to Green Day, have roots in punk.
And seen from a prog view it's obvious to mention TMV, they came directly from a punk/hardcore background.


Really couldn't agree more.  Punk is indispensable to the developments in rock music (and even some pop) since the 80s onwards.  But then plenty of progsters hate MUSIC that doesn't have a 1979 or older date on it Tongue so it's not surprising they'd want to play down punk.  Also, things like burning effigies of Emerson were very disgusting and that has probably permanently turned the prog rock crowd off punk.  Music is not about hate, you shouldn't do things like that even for fun. 
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3919
Post Options Post Options   Quote tamijo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:50
Yes, like with every other genre, it evolved, the idear that punk was just a () in rock music is absurd, it influenced wave, it evolved into hardcore, it fused with elements from ska ect. ect.
Many of the band that today would be referred to as alternative, from Bjørk, to Green Day, have roots in punk.
And seen from a prog view it's obvious to mention TMV, they came directly from a punk/hardcore background.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5532
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:42
^^^  Additionally, the implicit suggestion that somebody like John McGeoch brought nothing new to the table appears either biased or uninformed to me.  Guitar went to new places in punk and not always within the boundaries of 'pure' punk but through its offshoots and the genres it influenced.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.125 seconds.