Misinterpreting the term "prog"

chamberry wrote: 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? ...

^^^  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.  

tamijo wrote: 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 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. 

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

C'mon, didn't they teach you basic set theory in your math class?

Edited by Gerinski - April 15 2013 at 03:04

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.

tamijo wrote: 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.

tamijo wrote: [/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.

tamijo wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: 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.