Misinterpreting the term "prog" - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Hey,

I've always had this confusion when I started listening to prog rock until I started listening to different sorts of music.

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?

Think about it. That's a big statement, and quite ignorant considering the history of popular music since, well, jazz.

I mean, wasn't jazz a progress from the classical music academia, a less strict, more available way of making music?

Wasn't psychedelic rock a progress from standard R&B pop singles?

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?

The list goes on and on.

Why does the ghost of "progress" still clings to, what we consider, prog rock? We know that the term was labeled in a specific time and place, for a specific type of music. We know that progressive rock is this sort of rock that has this and that characteristics... But why do we still believe that prog rock is synonymous with a progress, of some sort, in music, and still shun bands that don't fit into the mold? Surely there was confusion between the term progressive and the genre progressive rock, but why does it still stand? Haven't we got enough music to listen to to realize that that's not true?

As if prog rock, as a genre, was the sole place where one could find revolutionary musical ideas...

As if progress, had a mold that one needs to fit in...

Really?

If prog rock is synonymous with progress in music, then PUNK should be prog rock as well! It's an absurd statement that can be justified with the same line of reasoning used by people who think that prog rock is the same as progressive-thinking music... and progress in music can include a strive for simplicity, a strive for a break from the mold, a strive for a distancing from what prog rock is.

Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought?

Can we stop being such elitist c*nts, for once, and actually learn from our errors? Embarrassed

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
rushfan4 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2007 Location: Michigan, U.S. Status: Offline Points: 65938	Posted: April 07 2013 at 20:56
	If it ain't a blast from the past.


chamberry Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 24 2005 Location: Puerto Rico Status: Offline Points: 9008	Posted: April 07 2013 at 20:55
	I'm trying to stir things up since my last visit to the forums. It seems quite tame nowadays.


chamberry Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 24 2005 Location: Puerto Rico Status: Offline Points: 9008	Posted: April 07 2013 at 20:53
	Hey, I've always had this confusion when I started listening to prog rock until I started listening to different sorts of music. 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? Think about it. That's a big statement, and quite ignorant considering the history of popular music since, well, jazz. I mean, wasn't jazz a progress from the classical music academia, a less strict, more available way of making music? Wasn't psychedelic rock a progress from standard R&B pop singles? 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? The list goes on and on. Why does the ghost of "progress" still clings to, what we consider, prog rock? We know that the term was labeled in a specific time and place, for a specific type of music. We know that progressive rock is this sort of rock that has this and that characteristics... But why do we still believe that prog rock is synonymous with a progress, of some sort, in music, and still shun bands that don't fit into the mold? Surely there was confusion between the term progressive and the genre progressive rock, but why does it still stand? Haven't we got enough music to listen to to realize that that's not true? As if prog rock, as a genre, was the sole place where one could find revolutionary musical ideas... As if progress, had a mold that one needs to fit in... Really? If prog rock is synonymous with progress in music, then PUNK should be prog rock as well! It's an absurd statement that can be justified with the same line of reasoning used by people who think that prog rock is the same as progressive-thinking music... and progress in music can include a strive for simplicity, a strive for a break from the mold, a strive for a distancing from what prog rock is. Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought? Can we stop being such elitist c*nts, for once, and actually learn from our errors?