Prog Song Structure

Dean wrote: Absolutely Todd, though that has little to do with what Pedro is arguing about.

Perhaps indeed, to the extent that it's been deciphered! I was addressing earlier comments from RogerThat too, though, as I was catching up on this thread all at once after a couple week hiatus.

HackettFan wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: HackettFan wrote: I think an example of Prog that did not originate in England in the 1960s has already been mentioned; MOI - Freak Out. Based on the characteristics that are normally attributed to Prog, that's Prog. It was not traditionally associated with that term, hence part of the problem, but I will continue to presume the broader definition of Prog that ProgArchives adopts. Freak Out, Absolutely Free... were not influenced by British Prog and Freak Out was prior to it. By the same token, British Prog was not influenced in any great fashion by Frank Zappa or Captain Beefheart in the 1960s, I think it may be fair to say. Both were non-derivative from each other. So, the US West Coast band(s?) launched Prog slightly earlier, but did not grow it very well. Soft Machine alone probably spawned more individual Prog bands. For this Zappa discovered a lot of musicians, a lot of them did not do what we generally consider Prog in their own work (e.g. Jean Luc Ponty did some nice Jazz, but we don't usually consider it Prog). Both sides in this are correct depending on our classification method, and the posts are talking past each other by assuming different classification methods. I think England has a rightful claim to the place where the Prog movement, as a "movement", began. But if you're looking less at influence on Prog in general and more at the necessary and sufficient characteristics of Prog, some few early bands like Zappa's MOI can rightly add to their accolades. As an analogy from biology, consider how Dimetrodon had all the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a reptile, but is not related to any reptiles and no reptile today is descended from it, but all of the mammals are. Happy Easter I don't disagree with anything you said, and I thank you, sir. What you offer is the basis for an intellectual  discussion on the origins of Prog Rock. Unfortunately, Mosh cannot seem to make the baby steps needed to inch his way into that discussion. He is on some macrocosmic trip across the galaxy in search of the lost chord (preferably written in Portuguese but directed by Jean Luc Godard), while the actual discussion is microcosmic, centered on earth and dealing with the genre this forum was created for. On topic, the compositions of Frank Zappa are certainly relatable to the prog rock vein, if you consider some of the classical elements he threw in, but I consider an album like Hot Rats to be more a progenitor of fusion than prog, don't you think? I think Santana, who certainly was progressive with his Latin-infused rock, to be heading in the fusion direction also, culminating with him leaving rock altogether with Caravanserai. It may all be subjective, of course, but that is my impression. And Happy Easter to you too as well. If an atheist can wish someone that.  Thanks for your kind words. I think Jazz/Rock fusion when it first came out was Prog. It was an experiment that had either never been done before, or had, at least, lots of open territory for exploration. Hot Rats was one of those very early explorations. Now Jazz/Rock Fusion is a musical style in it's own right. I would not call any of it Prog Rock today in our current context, but Hot Rats came out in a historical context in which incorporating Jazz was not run-of-the-mill. Of course I think you might already agree with this, and you're echoing my point that a lot of Zappa's influence evolved into things that were not Prog Rock.

HackettFan wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: HackettFan wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: HackettFan wrote: I think an example of Prog that did not originate in England in the 1960s has already been mentioned; MOI - Freak Out. Based on the characteristics that are normally attributed to Prog, that's Prog. It was not traditionally associated with that term, hence part of the problem, but I will continue to presume the broader definition of Prog that ProgArchives adopts. Freak Out, Absolutely Free... were not influenced by British Prog and Freak Out was prior to it. By the same token, British Prog was not influenced in any great fashion by Frank Zappa or Captain Beefheart in the 1960s, I think it may be fair to say. Both were non-derivative from each other. So, the US West Coast band(s?) launched Prog slightly earlier, but did not grow it very well. Soft Machine alone probably spawned more individual Prog bands. For this Zappa discovered a lot of musicians, a lot of them did not do what we generally consider Prog in their own work (e.g. Jean Luc Ponty did some nice Jazz, but we don't usually consider it Prog). Both sides in this are correct depending on our classification method, and the posts are talking past each other by assuming different classification methods. I think England has a rightful claim to the place where the Prog movement, as a "movement", began. But if you're looking less at influence on Prog in general and more at the necessary and sufficient characteristics of Prog, some few early bands like Zappa's MOI can rightly add to their accolades. As an analogy from biology, consider how Dimetrodon had all the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a reptile, but is not related to any reptiles and no reptile today is descended from it, but all of the mammals are. Happy Easter I don't disagree with anything you said, and I thank you, sir. What you offer is the basis for an intellectual  discussion on the origins of Prog Rock. Unfortunately, Mosh cannot seem to make the baby steps needed to inch his way into that discussion. He is on some macrocosmic trip across the galaxy in search of the lost chord (preferably written in Portuguese but directed by Jean Luc Godard), while the actual discussion is microcosmic, centered on earth and dealing with the genre this forum was created for. On topic, the compositions of Frank Zappa are certainly relatable to the prog rock vein, if you consider some of the classical elements he threw in, but I consider an album like Hot Rats to be more a progenitor of fusion than prog, don't you think? I think Santana, who certainly was progressive with his Latin-infused rock, to be heading in the fusion direction also, culminating with him leaving rock altogether with Caravanserai. It may all be subjective, of course, but that is my impression. And Happy Easter to you too as well. If an atheist can wish someone that.  Thanks for your kind words. I think Jazz/Rock fusion when it first came out was Prog. It was an experiment that had either never been done before, or had, at least, lots of open territory for exploration. Hot Rats was one of those very early explorations. Now Jazz/Rock Fusion is a musical style in it's own right. I would not call any of it Prog Rock today in our current context, but Hot Rats came out in a historical context in which incorporating Jazz was not run-of-the-mill. Of course I think you might already agree with this, and you're echoing my point that a lot of Zappa's influence evolved into things that were not Prog Rock. There was a divergence in rock in the US and Britain at the time and it may have been cultural or societal, with many US players opting for more of a fusion route and British players moving to prog, based on their knowledge of jazz or classical music.  Whatever side of the pond, a lot of the early bands/performers we are referring to were originally blues-based. In America, certainly Captain Beefheart, Hendrix, Santana with Peter Green's "Black Magic Woman" or "Evil Ways", and Zappa on Freak Out. But in the late 60s bands like Chicago Transit Authority, Blood Sweat & Tears, Zappa and later releases from Santana and Hendrix definitely went more toward the jazz-fusion spectrum than what we classify as prog rock. The same can be said of Jeff Beck and Jethro Tull in Britain, although Beck drifted from blues to fusion and Tull went from blues (with a hint of cocktail jazz) to prog (with everything from hard rock to folk to electronica thrown in).  I agree with everything except this with respect to Zappa: The Dark Elf wrote: Zappa and later releases from Santana and Hendrix definitely went more toward the jazz-fusion spectrum than what we classify as prog rock. I think even later Jazz/Rock that Zappa did such as Inca Roads on One Size Fits All from 1975 is structured with lots of transitions between parts (just to get back to the OP ), and it transitions between numerous time signatures in a fashion which makes it fit more with Prog Rock than Jazz.

The Dark Elf wrote: And Happy Easter to you too as well. If an atheist can wish someone that.

We're both atheists alike, but there's nothing particularly religious about hiding eggs, and I love a feast. Leg of lamb...yum.

The Dark Elf wrote: HackettFan wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: And Happy Easter to you too as well. If an atheist can wish someone that. We're both atheists alike, but there's nothing particularly religious about hiding eggs, and I love a feast. Leg of lamb...yum. It's originally a pagan holiday anyway.

Indeed!

 

moshkito wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: "If you have specific evidence that what we refer to as "Progressive Rock" did not originate in Britain in the late 60s, then provide it. That's it. No socialist babble. No revisionist worldview prattle. No mind-numbing flights of film fantasy." And besides, you're gonna say it's not rock, and then find another excuse because it doesn't have a mellotron or a bike!

You're damn right.    And if it isn't rock, you'd have a lot of explaining to do, now wouldn't you.   it's always worth the hassle, that's what most of us are doing here;  make your case and back it up or get off the pot.

*sigh*

Format is an odd thing.

Why does it exist? To make a piece of music communicable. There are contemporary conventions of how this is done but often change according to the artist wishes. Artist wishes and audience wishes are often at polar opposites.

The Symphony format. This veers from any of Haydn's 100 c. 6 minute, 3 movement numbers to the giant opii (opuses?) of Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Beethoven. Concerti are not really that different though more likely to feature a soloist in a large orchestral context. There is a more or less standard format - the four movement thing but this has been played with a lot. Progressives, eh? Who'd have 'em.

Pop structure used to be defined (think Cole Porter and the '20s - '30s jazz era) by 32 bar numbers with nice, (sophisticated) chord sequences. That is, having the harmonic decency to use a diminished chord cadence now and then as the Put On The Ritz.

Rock and roll is limited to a guitar (or two) bass drums, vocal and maybe keyboards. Often a 1 rhythm thing all the way through and sometimes a repeated refrain to indicate there is indeed, a chorus. Audiences do a curious thing here. they moan like buggery at standard cadences but hate it when there are not. Classic rock is now, a hot bed of cold feet.

Contemporary pop usually features the chorus. Some songs even started with this. The Beatles had a go at doing this thing quite a bit. People really only want the chorus and put up with a verse just to get to the chorus. The unbelievable wait of 15 - 30 seconds.

So then we get to the by now scarcely noted world (in the greater scheme if things) of prog rock.

How can there be arguments about a prog rock format when no one knows what it is (but you do when you hear it, as one reads clear unequivocal definitive terms such as "proginess").

TFTO has vocals and lyrics. Symphonies do not. Opera? Well, it's not a play or drama, it's a narrative. Songs? Well if Yes had formatted the recording there would indeed be identifiable songs such as Relayer on The Remembering, or Leaves of Green, Nu Somme du Soleil. The first number works as a song - it's just 20 minutes long rather than 3 - 4.

Yes trustingly left it up to their sophisticated and understanding progressive audience to hear these features and know what was going on. Big mistake. It's probably the one thing that stopped it from being Yes' TDSOTM. That and lyrical obfuscation anyway, people want songs about sex, that's what, not other worldliness. But it keeps writers busy so there we go.

It is a suite. A rock concerto. It features the soloists in their own movements. Being rock it features the vocalist illustrating via his narrative of a journey of spiritual awakening, conflict, resolution and full circle by the end. Tull did a couple, Purple did as well. ELP had Karn Evil 9. Supper's Ready by Gabriel's Angels... there are many.

The features of prog rock are the harmonic sophistication not evident in most rock. Sometimes a song is a prog rock song as it may feature a chorus among the busy sounds - again nothing wrong with this, however the writer and artist want to communicate a musical idea - that's all that is happening. No biggie. Asia, for example have loads of prog rock songs but no real lengthy numbers. This has been argued as a dumbing down of prog rock, making enjoyable music available for the masses rather than the exclusive preserve of snobs like me. Swine. Still, we do have TFTO to annoy people with...

Sometimes the work is structurally more adventurous. Sometimes more so than the audience can understand. So we have prog rock in multiple structures, usually vocally phrased as it is still rock, popular music and able to seed it's ideas to other areas such as the '80s KC, T Heads, Bowie and other so called "art rock" acts to adventurous and talented to be limited by corporate commercial "requirements" as well as marginalized by either prog rock dogma or punk rock fascism and media manipulation. These (KC et al) were a bunch of v. smart people. They had songs and sophistication by the bucket load. Artistic credibility and contemporary acceptance and commercial success. Well done.

No one thing but many things define prog rock. It uses various formats, it explores and creates new ones. Don't let a format trap your thinking, as much as music is about it's audience so a progressive audience must be that thing - progressive. It uses a lot of instruments, it allows instrumental bands to flourish (Univers Zero, Djam Karet and to an extent Magma) unlike the petty tyranny of reactionary rock, punk and standard pop. Are these rather nebulous traits absent friends from the prog rock community?

The answer is Yes.

I hope.






Edited by uduwudu - April 30 2014 at 01:38

The Dark Elf wrote: ... The rest of your dalliance with psychotropics is as unintelligible as usual. From what I could decipher, using a combination of the Rosetta stone, Ginsburg and astrophysics, is that you are still incapable of answering a direct question