Misinterpreting the term "prog"

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?

If it ain't a blast from the past.

^ True that, but it's a nag to hear people confusing the term over and over again... So I want to be a nag too. You know, confront the doubt instead of just going with it or ignoring it, because a lot of people are missing out on awesome music because of it, too.

I thought that most of us have long got over this subject and do not equate progressiveness in music with prog rock as a label for a certain style of music.

I think that the "Prog" side of prog rock doesn't mean progression in terms of time periods - that it does mean progression within the music itself. I see "prog" as music that has progressed beyond the standard in terms of complexity and structure - not as anything more or less than that. Thus Punk, for example, was a movement or a fad, if you will, that spawned the kind of music that we refer to as punk irrelevantly of how it started. There is nothing wrong with "a progressive punk band" - if a band played a more complex  form of punk rock - falling within the progressive sphere as we understand it. However Punk was never progressive in itself although it progressed from standard rock music. The same would apply to Disco, Grunge etc etc.

Is techno a progress from Krautrock? I'd call it  a regress. I have never liked Kraftwerk,  they are already synth-pop. 

Genres are genres, genres are labels, labels are words, words are groups of letters. Isn't it all one big progression? 

I don't think Prog means "progressive rock" or "art rock" meas progressive rock.  For instance, the modern fine art world is often pretty regressive, sometimes  could even be considered big investment scams set up by collectors and some art magazines. The museums are following suit, quite often.  Progressive Rock should be progressing in the usual criteria of music used historically for serious music.  Art rock can just be the "greasy spoon aesthetic" of heroin influenced music done even more drony and crappily then before.   There are "progressive" elements in some rock bands that I have a hard time considering Prog.  The term Prog has a dear spot in my mind.  To me, it basically means progressive rock that shares traditional spiritual values that were pretty common before the 1980s.  There is some modern progressive rock that is nihilistic and actually sounds like circus music and I have a hard time associating that with Prog. When I say spiritual values, I could even say cultural values.

Edited by brainstormer - April 08 2013 at 14:41

Originally posted by dr wu23 Chanberrry said, " 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?" I think most here would agree with that...so what point  is 'Chanberry' trying to make...?

I think the point he wants to make is, that some people criticize music, if they sound too much like Genesis, Yes, King Crimson etc, as being derivative and give it a bad review.
Luckily, what I see is, that the majority here does not seem to have this attitude.
I agree with Chanberry and probably with the majority, that 'prog rock' is a genre with certain characteristics, and is not "progressive" as such.

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?