Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs Progressive rock "Progressive"?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
Message
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 764
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2013 at 19:41
Nice to hear 5Bridges back again...One spare Peter Gabriel-like voice !!


Back to Top
Second Life Syndrome View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 20 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 359
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:03
Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.

When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.

Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.

Exactly.
theprogmind.com
Back to Top
Second Life Syndrome View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 20 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 359
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:09
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.

The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.

Not to be disrespectful, but get off your high horse, dude.  Who made you the measure of originality?  If you don't like something, that doesn't make it bad.  It doesn't make it unoriginal.   It doesn't mean art is in a sad state.  It means you don't like it, or that you have an inflated ego or a ridiculously high standard for others---though you make no art yourself.  Sheesh.
theprogmind.com
Back to Top
cstack3 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3644
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:37
*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category.  I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so. 

My argument is that ALL rock is progressive!  The very first rock fused American black musical forms (blues, jazz) with white American technical & commercial savvy, and then took off.  

Many of the earliest rock music had some KILLER musicianship because the jazz studio players of the era would do rock dates for money!  

Check out the guitar solo in this lovely old chestnut - it starts exactly at 0.43.  Who played that, Steve Howe??




Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3156
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2013 at 22:15
Originally posted by Second Life Syndrome Second Life Syndrome wrote:

Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.

The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.

Not to be disrespectful, but get off your high horse, dude.  Who made you the measure of originality?  If you don't like something, that doesn't make it bad.  It doesn't make it unoriginal.   It doesn't mean art is in a sad state.  It means you don't like it, or that you have an inflated ego or a ridiculously high standard for others---though you make no art yourself.  Sheesh.


Zravkapt...


you must have never heard...
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...

I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.


Back to Top
dr prog View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2010
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 1876
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2013 at 22:36
Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol
All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock.
Back to Top
The.Crimson.King View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4574
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 00:00
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category.  I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so. 

^ I always think of it as Art Rock as well Handshake
Back to Top
zravkapt View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Post/Math Rock Team

Joined: October 12 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6441
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 06:35
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:




Zravkapt...


you must have never heard...
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...

I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.




How is what any of those groups do different from what other groups were doing 20-30 years ago? Koenjihyakkei is the Japanese Magma for crying out loud...how original can you be when you are compared to another group? The question could be pointed back: how familiar are you with music that came out between 1969-1999? I listen to lots of modern music and because I do I am aware of how little innovation has taken place. 'Original' does not equal good and just because a band is current does not mean they are doing anything that someone else hasn't already done before.
Magma America Great Make Again
Back to Top
rainsnowwinter View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: September 15 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 06:55
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson[1]



Being new to the scene, can't quite get this one. I mean most of the songs on the Dark Side have repetitive parts like verses and choruses (Money, Us & Them, ...), which leads to think that the album is not Progressive music and it is Pop?!
Did I miss something here? please explain.


Edited by rainsnowwinter - September 15 2013 at 06:57
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37331
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 07:04
Originally posted by dr prog dr prog wrote:

Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol
And all of them that formed before 1980. rfolofofollofloffaho.
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 764
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 07:53
What's new nowadays: everything has become easier, from creating complex polyrythmics (advanced DJ-ing /quantize tools), to working on pitches, to sound engineering (powerful virtual tools), since computers can manage complex audio processing...So it is from 15-20 years on...

...If the only possible 
new music is the one that would nearly exhaust powerful computers of nowadays; and if the taste of unknown only depends on what we did explore before, so the point isn't really about a new conceptual revolution for itself, is it?



Edited by jayem - September 15 2013 at 11:00
Back to Top
wowie View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: January 09 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 08:00
maybe its just progressive (means stylistically unfixed) music with a heavy disposition to the rock genre.
if you then say its regressive, you can only mean that the progressive element, to build in new styles (which includes playing methods, instruments, genres) is less processed then in relation to another time (like the 70s).

As you have some subgenres of prog these days, the progressive element is of course not everywhere at maximum.
In some subgenres the progressive elements are pretty fixed to special methods.
And in every subgenre you have different types of progression.
The one progresses not much, hes only part of the genre that once was progressive but is pretty fixed now 8because its no new fusion or progress of styles), another progresses with the playing (so he plays symphonic rock but hes still progressive as he is doing a lots of creativity/progress/recombining in playing methods and instruments) and another one is progressive in more then one way (using a lots of different instruments and genres and so on).

math rock is a good example.
it is extremely progressive in terms of playing, but pretty unprogressive in terms of genre adaption.

but mostly in every genre and subgenre, you have somebody that breaks the principle, the grade of fixation, the actual balance of the system and reforming parts of it.

As long as the people are unclear of what prog rock/prog music is, it will be a hard argumentation as mostly everybody is talking about a different source. so it would be good if there would be a summation of the possible perspectives.


but one thing is clear, prog music lovers will not come to the perpective that prog music is regressing, this is just not possible because you have to be progressive to be a prog musician.

For fans of the prog rock, its not as easy to say this, because first of all it is historical dependent on definition and second because rock is kind of dated more and more.
There is a heavy problem to define many bands these days and so we call em all post-rock bands. just because they use e-guitar, drums and bass and are not playing in terms of Elvis, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.

back then, some things were progressive, but today, they are just old and 70s, today its just pure symphonic-rock and it was there many times and it isnt progressive any more due to an universal art/prog definition.
so there is a partial regression, specially in using different genres and in using instruments in some subgenres that came out of the new experimental/fusion/art/prog genre in the 70s.

Back then you were open in definition and you had to be extremely experimental and fusing in your approach.
Today, many just reproduce the FUSED structure from back then.
Thats why it is called retro-prog.

And why is retro-prog still prog?
because they are partially oepn in some elements.
Even if it is just the playing of their instruments.

And so, for some or even for many, this is not really prog, because it is extremely reproductive in many ways.
But it stil lcan be prog msuic if you classify it as a simple term of symphonic-folk-electric-experimental-rock.
but you have to be very exact here when it come to the percentual definition ;)
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3156
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 08:18
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:




Zravkapt...


you must have never heard...
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...

I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.




How is what any of those groups do different from what other groups were doing 20-30 years ago? Koenjihyakkei is the Japanese Magma for crying out loud...how original can you be when you are compared to another group? The question could be pointed back: how familiar are you with music that came out between 1969-1999? I listen to lots of modern music and because I do I am aware of how little innovation has taken place. 'Original' does not equal good and just because a band is current does not mean they are doing anything that someone else hasn't already done before.

Personally I think they sound very different than Magma. Sure, they owe a lot to them, but it does't mean it isn't original. And I think it's catchy and funny and weird and I enjoy it. Just like Sleepytime Gorilla Museum owes plenty to Mr. Bungle but Mr Bungle owes plenty to Idiot Flesh and so on and so on.

And I'm pretty familiar with older bands as well. You could say The Mars Volta is a ripoff of Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso

But let's look at it this way...

There are only so many modes and keys. And they had all been explored by the time the 20th century rolled around. All we did as humans was add different percussion and textures.

WITH YOUR ATTITUDE... music after the 1950s is all unoriginal because they didn't do anything NEW

Pink Floyd took chord structures that had been used before and added effects. UNORIGINAL
Gentle Giant is just a ripoff of Baroque Music UNORIGINAL
King Crimson just stole from jazz and classical music UNORIGINAL

(I"m being facetious) 


Edited by Smurph - September 15 2013 at 08:20
Back to Top
zravkapt View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Post/Math Rock Team

Joined: October 12 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6441
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:00
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:


There are only so many modes and keys. And they had all been explored by the time the 20th century rolled around. All we did as humans was add different percussion and textures. 
 
My whole point is few are 'adding' anything. Just because a band is not doing anything new doesn't mean they cannot make good music. In my personal opinion, most art (music, books, movies, etc) has become too predictable and bland. I also feel that the progress of technology seems more important to many people today. As an example, take the recent hit movie Avatar. It was popular because no one had ever seen a movie like that before. The technology made the movie; the actual storyline and acting was not any better than in the original Star Wars films, for example.
 
Here's some examples of recent stuff I would consider modern prog that was still trying to be unique and experimental. The first is a recently released album which I don't think anyone has suggested for PA yet; the other two are artists already on PA.
 
This is something I'm surprised hasn't been done yet, featuring artists who appear on PA either as bandmembers or solo artists:
 
 
Claudio Milano has a few different projects out there (some prog, some not). He's willing to push boundaries even if no one is listening:
 
 
Cabezas de Cera use not only unconventional instruments but also ones they themselves invented. They add some ethnic influences into the mix and create something that is not only 100% 'prog' but doesn't sound like other prog bands either:
 
 
  
Magma America Great Make Again
Back to Top
BrufordFreak View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 25 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 2158
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:21
Reading this thread makes me think it would be fun and perhaps worth our while to put out a thread to actually come up with a new name for "progressive rock." Then, if we, the thousands who live on and for this type of music were to latch onto this new title, we could actually make a change--make it stick. How 'bout: 
"Graz Rock" or 
"Mobile Music" or
"Random Rock" or 
"Choice Rock" or
 "Experimental Rock" or 
"LP Rock" or 
"Self-absorbed Rock Music" or 
MoRe-than-Rock" or 
"Re-Form Rock" or 
"Less Common Rock" or 
"Non-Formulaic Formula Rock" or 
"Complicated Rock" or 
"Charterhouse Rock" or
"Devon Rock" or
"Empire Rock" or
"Affluent Rock" or
"Unusual Small Combo Music" or
"Electrically-Enhanced Music for Jazz and Classical Musicians" ("EEM") or
"Free Form Compostion", 
etc., 
etc.


Drew Fisher,
retired radio DJ and dormant music blogger
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 21160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:42
Oh yeah DarrylClap Love me some Cabezas de Cera. I've heard snippets off of their newest Hermandad and it sounds amazing to these ears, but right now I'm too broke to go buy new records. Verdammt!

As I've pointed out previously in this thread, I don't think prog has progressed much in recent years. That doesn't mean that there isn't good stuff out there though, because there is. A lot of what's featured here on PA isn't necessarily what I'd call prog either(I don't consider Krautrock, Zeuhl, Psych/space rock, RIO/Avant, as well as most of what's included in the more experimental metal genres, to be prog.) - even if it does belong here in one way or another, which again leads me to the tricky part of this conundrum, and where we always seem to land in these kinda pseudo discussions: How each of us defines prog, or indeed what constitutes progressive music, is at the heart of the quarrel. I've seen a lot of acts mentioned here, whom people obviously think of as being progressive, where I think they perhaps mean prog, as in the style of music. In my head, and bear with me here because my head is a wild and sometimes incoherent place, but in the old cabeza of mine, prog and progressive aren't the same things, which a lot of people get wrong. Prog has become a style that relies on what folks were doing in the 70s - and just because bands of today are "pushing boundaries" with secular pieces within their tunes, add weird instruments and all that jazz, doesn't mean that it hasn't been done before. Nor does it mean that it's bad in any way, shape or form. 
Again, my sentiments on this is that the real progressive rock lies somewhere outside of the prog-sphere, and has done so ever since the late 70s (with some exceptions though, which Darryl(Zravkapt) illustrated perfectly with his clips. Cabezas are certainly bringing something new to the table imho)
Lastly, I'd like to think that a band can be fully original without having to be progressive. 
“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
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 21160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:53
Originally posted by wowie wowie wrote:

maybe its just progressive (means stylistically unfixed) music with a heavy disposition to the rock genre.
if you then say its regressive, you can only mean that the progressive element, to build in new styles (which includes playing methods, instruments, genres) is less processed then in relation to another time (like the 70s).

As you have some subgenres of prog these days, the progressive element is of course not everywhere at maximum.
In some subgenres the progressive elements are pretty fixed to special methods.
And in every subgenre you have different types of progression.
The one progresses not much, hes only part of the genre that once was progressive but is pretty fixed now 8because its no new fusion or progress of styles), another progresses with the playing (so he plays symphonic rock but hes still progressive as he is doing a lots of creativity/progress/recombining in playing methods and instruments) and another one is progressive in more then one way (using a lots of different instruments and genres and so on).

math rock is a good example.
it is extremely progressive in terms of playing, but pretty unprogressive in terms of genre adaption.

but mostly in every genre and subgenre, you have somebody that breaks the principle, the grade of fixation, the actual balance of the system and reforming parts of it.

As long as the people are unclear of what prog rock/prog music is, it will be a hard argumentation as mostly everybody is talking about a different source. so it would be good if there would be a summation of the possible perspectives.


but one thing is clear, prog music lovers will not come to the perpective that prog music is regressing, this is just not possible because you have to be progressive to be a prog musician.

For fans of the prog rock, its not as easy to say this, because first of all it is historical dependent on definition and second because rock is kind of dated more and more.
There is a heavy problem to define many bands these days and so we call em all post-rock bands. just because they use e-guitar, drums and bass and are not playing in terms of Elvis, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.

back then, some things were progressive, but today, they are just old and 70s, today its just pure symphonic-rock and it was there many times and it isnt progressive any more due to an universal art/prog definition.
so there is a partial regression, specially in using different genres and in using instruments in some subgenres that came out of the new experimental/fusion/art/prog genre in the 70s.

Back then you were open in definition and you had to be extremely experimental and fusing in your approach.
Today, many just reproduce the FUSED structure from back then.
Thats why it is called retro-prog.

And why is retro-prog still prog?
because they are partially oepn in some elements.
Even if it is just the playing of their instruments.

And so, for some or even for many, this is not really prog, because it is extremely reproductive in many ways.
But it stil lcan be prog msuic if you classify it as a simple term of symphonic-folk-electric-experimental-rock.
but you have to be very exact here when it come to the percentual definition ;)


How is that? You mean to say that all those people ever since the 70s, who've been playing David Gilmour up his bum(some of em doing a marvellous job at that) - all are progressive because they're playing a brand of music called prog? 
This is what happens when you misunderstand the word prog and it's meaning. Prog is a style of music. Back when it was newly born, it was very much progressive - yet nowadays it's become a brand. Progressive is merely an adjective, which once could be attached to the style. Heck, when punk and post-punk hit the airwaves sometime near the mid to late 70s, they were the true progressive rock. Why? Because it was new and no-one had done it before. They basically took what The Who and other such garagey Mod bands were doing in the sixties, threw it in the blender with some fierce attitudes and, mostly, poorer playing. Be that as it may, they were still progressive for their time - even if the prog musicians of the day were doing far more complex and expansive stuff. Progressive rock doesn't equate complex music with hefty time sigs and the likes - the style prog does though.
“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
wowie View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: January 09 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 11:16
:)
no i dont want to say that. Im with you and can second your post s many others here.
i just fused my two posts and im very satisfied :D
hope you like it, here it comes:


Now i got it :D

if we say, prog rock is rock music with progressive elements, then we have to ask what exactly is progressive.

What elements used in music can be described as progressive?


One idea could be, that the progressive element can be restricted somehow.

To the „kind“ of music that were played by some bands back in the 70s.

So for coincidence a rock with some kind of experimental symphonic folk jazz electro influences.

No matter what you say now, it is some kind of that music and if it doesnt sound like one of the glorious prog gods from back then or isnt listed by the official prog publishes and social communitys, it is no prog.


Another idea of PROG ROCK or just PROG could be that

the additional composing and playing form is free and wanted

the additional song structure is free and wanted

the additional use of genres is free and wanted

the use of additional instruments is free and wanted

an additional unrepititive and free use of all musical elements is wanted


so we are not talking about EXPERIMENTAL and AVANT music, we are talking about an exclusive and enhanced (fusioned/recombined and maybe experimental) form of ROCK. RIO could be very similar to PROG but it differs in the exclusion of (NORMAL) ROCK structures in general where PROG could be open to that.


So now we have our definition, we can ask if modern prog rock isnt that or absolutely not progressive.

Rock in itself develops. So if we look at the rock in general, we can easily say it is progressive i think. You have massive rock bands that use any of the things we use to define prog rock.

They are not repititive, they use other instruments and genres and so on. You have all kinds of rock crossover acts, bands that fuses other genres and at the same time are being very progressive in their composing. And it goes and and on. There are coming more and more doing a lot of crazy things, you just have to explore - you will find everything you cant imagine. There are so many bands out there, you cant listen to all of them in your whole life. There is still repitition, but there is also a lot of development and the usual rock listener is already searching a lot for new and creative bands and they find them. They maybe dont know that this is progressive, but it is.

Best example are all the young people that listen to prog metal, and new rock like Muse, Mars Volta, Radiohead etc. This is prog rock.

If we look to those rock subgenres, that we list in Prog Archives, we can also say that all elements are still there but how much - and is this list representative of what we think is prog rock or prog music today and for all?

a) Are some bands who fulfill some kind of prog definition also very repititive in some other way?

b) How much can we progress the prog rock as a style? Can and do we (the doers and consumers) progress it?

a) can be very relative. As the progressivity also depends on the musicians and listeners background. But specially with the help of the subgenre of retro-rock we can say, that some elements of prog rock are not that fulfilled by some bands which we call progressive.

Not because they are technically bad musicians, its because the stuff they play isnt new to many others. Its complex, it combines different genres, but it is still a repititon of something that was already there. And it makes it not better if they are bad musicians.


But somehow, i would say they are still progressive, but maybe not that much then a band that is just labeled as a post-rock or indie band. And in relation to all possibilitys of music and all the elements you can use today and back then, they are also not that progressive maybe. But to answer this question precisely, you have to know how much bands there were back then and how much usage they made of the freedom they had back then.

But so it is extremely important to understand i think, that the definition of prog rock is „common rock definition“ today, or should we say, part or the problem of defining rock and mainstream music in general. And so there are bands outside the common prog rock genres, that are very progressive and maybe rock too and who are somehow, in relation to the expectation and musical consciousness of the listener, much more progressive then a symphonic rock band.


That brings us also to b)

and you should answer that for yourself!

:)


i just want to remember

It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it.“

Keith Emerson


Its more an attitude then a stringent style as Robert Fripp would say.


omhomunculus :) now im gonna chill to death!


oh btw if you still dont got me,
i think prog rock is still progressive, but i also think, that the rest of the rock and all other genres are minimum equally progressive. And that should be PROG music.
But hey, now we have PROG FUSION, maybe we will get some FREE PROG FUSION ;)




Edited by wowie - September 15 2013 at 11:39
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Symphonic Prog Specialist

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19459
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 11:17
Originally posted by Rainsnowwinter Rainsnowwinter wrote:

Being new to the scene, can't quite get this one. I mean most of the songs on the Dark Side have repetitive parts like verses and choruses (Money, Us & Them, ...), which leads to think that the album is not Progressive music and it is Pop?!
Did I miss something here? please explain.

You are still thinking in Pop terms.

You can't see Prog in terms of songs, but in terms of the whole record, specially Dark Side which is almost a conceptual album.

Money is just a movement of whole opus, and yes the repretition in this case is some sort of  variations over the same theme.

A Great Gig in the Sky with Claire Torry Improvisations is a great example on this, as a fact it's very interesting structure
            
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 21160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2013 at 11:30
Originally posted by wowie wowie wrote:

:)
no i dont want to say that. Im with you and can second your post s many others here.
i just fused my two posts and im very satified :D
hope you like it, here it comes:


Now i got it :D

if we say, prog rock is rock music with progressive elements, then we have to ask what exactly is progressive.

What elements used in music can be described as progressive?


One idea could be, that the progressive element can be restricted somehow.

To the „kind“ of music that were played by some bands back in the 70s.

So for coincidence a rock with some kind of experimental symphonic folk jazz electro influences.

No matter what you say now, it is some kind of that music and if it doesnt sound like one of the glorious prog gods from back then or isnt listed by the official prog publishes and social communitys, it is no prog.


Another idea or PROG ROCK could be that

the additional composing and playing form is free and wanted

the additional song structure is free and wanted

the additional use of genres is free and wanted

the use of additional instruments is free and wanted

an additional unrepititive and free use of all musical elements is wanted


so we are not talking about EXPERIMENTAL and AVANT music, we are talking about an exclusive and enhanced (fusioned/recombined and maybe experimental) form of ROCK. RIO could be very similar to PROG but it differs in the exclusion of (NORMAL) ROCK structures in general where PROG could be open to that.


So now we have our definition, we can ask if modern prog rock isnt that or absolutely not progressive.

Rock in itself develops. So if we look at the rock in general, we can easily say it is progressive i think. You have massive rock bands that use any of the things we use to define prog rock.

They are not repititive, they use other instruments and genres and so on. You have all kinds of rock crossover acts, bands that fuses other genres and at the same time are being very progressive in their composing. And it goes and and on. There are coming more and more doing a lot of crazy things, you just have to explore - you will find everything you cant imagine. There are so many bands out there, you cant listen to all of them in your whole life. There is still repitition, but there is also a lot of development and the usual rock listener is already searching a lot for new and creative bands and they find them. They maybe dont know that this is progressive, but it is.

Best example are all the young people that listen to prog metal, and new rock like Muse, Mars Volta, Radiohead etc. This is prog rock.

If we look to those rock subgenres, that we list in Prog Archives, we can also say that all elements are still there but how much - and is this list representative of what we think is prog rock or prog music today and for all?

a) Are some bands who fulfill some kind of prog definition also very repititive in some other way?

b) How much can we progress the prog rock as a style? Can and do we (the doers and consumers) progress it?

a) can be very relative. As the progressivity also depends on the musicians and listeners background. But specially with the help of the subgenre of retro-rock we can say, that some elements of prog rock are not that fulfilled by some bands which we call progressive.

Not because they are technically bad musicians, its because the stuff they play isnt new to many others. Its complex, it combines different genres, but it is still a repititon of something that was already there. And it makes it not better if they are bad musicians.


But somehow, i would say they are still progressive, but maybe not that much then a band that is just labeled as a post-rock or indie band. And in relation to all possibilitys of music and all the elements you can use today and back then, they are also not that progressive maybe. But to answer this question precisely, you have to know how much bands there were back then and how much usage they made of the freedom they had back then.

But so it is extremely important to understand i think, that the definition of prog rock is „common rock definition“ today, or should we say, part or the problem of defining rock and mainstream music in general.


That brings us also to b)

and you should answer that for yourself!

:)


i just want to remember

It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it.“

Keith Emerson


Its more an attitude then a stringent style as Robert Fripp would say.


omhomunculus :) now im gonna chill to death!


oh btw if you still dont got me,
i think prog rock is still progressive, but i also think, that the rest of the rock and all other genres are minimum equally progressive.




I think I get the gist of what you're saying, although I may not entirely agree with youSmile

As for B) the sooner the musicians step outside of once tried and tested formulas and make music on their own accord, instead of what many bands do today, which is aiming for sub-genres and tags before they start making music, then half the battle is won. Of course Prog can evolve and progress, and it still does so, albeit at a very very slow pace imo.

“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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.