A Personal Definition of Prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

LostWaxMuseum View Drop Down

Forum Groupie

Joined: December 19 2013
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 67

Posted: May 27 2014 at 10:02

freyacat wrote:

You know, definitions of progressive rock which try to capture the sense of newness and innovation seem to lose clarity.

The genre that was born in the late 60's - early 70's, which joined jazz freedom to classical composition and precision and rock energy, which benefitted from the advent of the synthesizer and interesting new studio techniques, which explored new spiritual and philosophical horizons of lyrical subject matter -

That's what we call progressive rock.

And you know what? In the big picture, it's still more interesting and innovative than a lot of what we call cutting-edge today.

Precisely! I mean, I love Radiohead, but when people call them "experimental rock", it makes me wonder: is that the experiment Soft Machine conducted 40 years ago?

LostWaxMuseum View Drop Down

Forum Groupie

Joined: December 19 2013
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 67

Posted: May 27 2014 at 10:06

AEProgman wrote:

The frustrating, never ending search for a myriad of sounds, chord/note progressions, strange, oddly timed, regularly timed, over and under the top, harmonic, noisy, smooth, deep, light, dark, new, old, and slightly hook driven musical compositions with multiple or few instruments that at various stages reaches crescendos that raises the hair on my arms with goose bumps of sheer delight. The search continues…..

It said a personal definition Smile

Cheers to that! Tell me some of your favorite obscure bands. I started the thread hoping to discover some music I've never heard before. Can you make some recommendations?

LostWaxMuseum View Drop Down

Forum Groupie

Joined: December 19 2013
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 67

Posted: May 27 2014 at 10:14

Guldbamsen wrote:

ExittheLemming wrote:

Toaster Mantis wrote:

There seems to be two rivalling popular definitions of progressive rock I've encountered.

The first refers to a general willingness to think outside the box musically, or perhaps the specific culture of the 1960s/1970s prog-rock scene and newer heirs to that tradition, making "prog" an ethos more than a genre.
The second defines progressive rock as about constructing lengthy complex compositions using techniques and structures derived from classical music in the context of rock instrumentation.

I wager the site admins subscribe to the first, since music groups without much in the way of classical influence have found their way to its database. The second one would exclude most of the "Krautrock" groups except the more overtly symphonic, a lot of jazz fusion, more or less all post-rock, all but a handful Pink Floyd songs scattered across the band's entire discography et cetera.

I have to reluctantly agree with this demarcation. I say reluctantly because the ramifications of option 2 would be completely unpalatable to most of the PA members I've been arguing with to this effect for several years. Even current site admin Guldbamsen has ventured that Krautrock ain't really Prog.

Very true. I don't particularly think most artists found inside the folk, RIO/Avant, Indo prog/Raga rock, Electronic and post rock subs necessarily qualify as prog either, but we have to look at this from a historical pov. These scenes morphed in and out of each other during prog's heyday, maybe with the exception of post rock, but I think that's why we have all these acts, whom I would never dream of calling prog.
It'd be cool to have something like an 'outsider' part of the site, that included these artists for what they were instead of trying to convince people of something that was never true to begin with, but then again that all boils down to whether or not we can persuade Max into making some changes.

Btw here I am talking as a fellow member of PA. This is entirely my own take on this.

I love the idea! Outsider music is another exciting category. I half-expected that to be here already due to Beefheart's inclusion, but aside from him and maybe Jandek, there's not much of a venn diagram between outsider and prog.

Progosopher View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6393

Posted: May 27 2014 at 12:21

Observations on this thread, for what they are worth: It is obvious there are many ways to approach Prog, and thus many ways to define exactly what it is. Each has its own merits and weaknesses. We will never arrive at a conclusion to this debate because we are trying to create an objective definition through subject means. This does not necessarily mean all will disagree or that there will be no common ground. I still support the admins approach of describing a variety of characteristics which apply to Prog and think that everyone involved with this thread should review those descriptions. These characteristics do not apply exclusively to Prog, though. Note that these derive from both general opinions and informed analysis.

The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148

Posted: May 27 2014 at 14:32

The Dark Elf wrote:

...

But I do think there are gradations of what should be rightly viewed as "progressive rock", and unlike you I don't confuse what "progressive rock" is to the general notion of progressivity or haute nouveau modernity that you like to interchange with the former and then drop in the name of some degenerate director from the theater of the absurd.

The director/theater relation is an example, that many times fits better than in rock music, mostly because good film/theater is still appreciated in other countries, and has a relative position that is quite more enjoyed and discussed, than top ten at PA, relatively speaking.

This is the hard part to discuss here, even with folks like you. The arts are ALL a parallel, and very few, if ANY, do not have similarities to ther folks around them. But it is difficult stating that about pop music, if that is all you know, and then you spring the idea that Mosh is messed up. It's "probably" a fact!!!!! You don't go to the Met, or to the local Orchestra even, and neither do I. It's almost that all the appreciation for anything else is gone, and that slants your relative appreciation and comments.

I don't say that you are wrong, you, AS WELL, have outstanding points, and the only comment I would like to make is that we stick to the subject, that you are accusing me of generalities that I do not even come close to as well, so that means we're both shooting blanks ... but you can ALWAYS ask me ...what do you mean by this in specific? You don't do that to me!

Film, other than Hollywood's hold in America, still has a very significant individual streak that most can not handle, or enjoy. You really should see how many folks walkout of a Gaspar Noe film, or what's his name Dutch guy with all the psychedelic stuff, which even I have walked out of! But I walk out of X-Men after 15 minutes! Or Harry Potter after 20 minutes! It's utter crap, despite people liking it, but because of its "fame" everyone thinks it is not crap.

A definition of "progressive music" and "prog" only needs a bit of cleaning up ... I call it just needs a shoeshine and a bath! It's an old, dirty and too many doves and other birds have spat and pooped on it. I would love to see us clean it up a bit! And again, saying that "keyboards" are necessary or mandatory, is like saying that violins are mandatory in all orchestras, and it might be true for Beethoven and Tchaikovsky times, but I doubt that all the music in the area was ever shown to everyone that didn't have violins, like you can do today. And then Bernard Herrman, did it without a single violin for so many films that we still go ... wow! ... that's cool! Some of these parallels went to music and probably went on to affect what we see and do, that we don't even talk about!

This stuff has a way of really dismantling the definitions. And I, like you, want a solid definition so all of us, and everyone else, runs into a dead end when they try to break it apart! That's all I would love to see, and it can be done, but we have to get off our high horses and the continuing saying nothing part of this ... and stick to details. The keyboard one is the perfect example of how bad a definition can be. I like the joke that came out of Brazil about a guy that turned off this massive set of keyboards, and someone asked him why? Because I wanted to play jazz, not other music. I have to admit I still love that cartoon and wish I could find it and post it here! It came out in the Sao Paolo newspaper 30 years ago, and I can not tell yo who it was digging at!

Edited by moshkito - May 27 2014 at 14:39

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Guldbamsen View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098

Posted: May 27 2014 at 16:24

^While I agree with a lot of what you have to say Pedro - especially regarding the relationship between the arts and how they influenced each other, or, at the very least, inspired each other, you do have a tendency to interchange progressive music and 'prog'. These are, however, not interchangeable. A lot of the prog stuff that's being dished out nowadays, and frankly since the tail end of the 70s, is/was not progressive. It doesn't "push the envelope" of how we, as music fans, look at music and the rock genre as a whole. Yet we still feature artists here that aren't progressive. Why? Because they play 'prog'.

Now whether one could accuse the process of turning a word like 'prog', meaning progressive rock, into a sticker, or a sub genre of rock, of falsifying the truth and indeed taking away from the actual meaning of the word....well that's an entirely different matter altogether. This very site exists because of the sticker. Because a lot of collabs have dedicated their time and efforts into making this site one of the leading inside prog - yes the sticker.

There is a lot of progressive music added to the data base too, but it's certainly not mandatory - and we are not specifically looking for that, unless it has something to do with our much beloved genre. May be a shame to a lot of folks, but then again we're not called The Progressive Music Archives. If we did, then yes we could start brewing together a definition of progressive music that perhaps catered a bit better to what you're asking for.......but then again, with such a definition, we'd be opening the doors to hip hop, jazz, techno, chanson, musique concrete, punk, funk and the list is literally endless.

I love music from all sides of the spectrum - and I happen to love music that takes things to the next level - rams a chili up my backside and leaves an expression on my face that says nothing but: "Hot damn!!!! Did they just do that!?!?!?"

BUT, and I say this as a fellow music lover and lowbrow patron of the arts, Prog Archives is not - nor have ever been about the relationship between the arts or the lineage of progressive music. If it was it'd be an entirely different site, where most of the music, which we, the every day users, call 'prog', would have zero chance of getting included. Most of the stuff we'd be adding would be dub step, future garage (yes that's actually a form of music!) and the kind of klezmer folk music that's getting played in every major European city, where people go absolutely mad and dance and drink the night away.

If we ever cook up a definitive definition of anything that has to do with music, then we have lost the plot imho. Why? Because it's music.

Edited by Guldbamsen - May 27 2014 at 16:33

“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

The Dark Elf View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12681

Posted: May 27 2014 at 21:24

The Dark Elf wrote:

But I do think there are gradations of what should be rightly viewed as "progressive rock", and unlike you I don't confuse what "progressive rock" is to the general notion of progressivity or haute nouveau modernity that you like to interchange with the former and then drop in the name of some degenerate director from the theater of the absurd.

moshkito wrote:

The director/theater relation is an example, that many times fits better than in rock music, mostly because good film/theater is still appreciated in other countries, and has a relative position that is quite more enjoyed and discussed, than top ten at PA, relatively speaking.

I will say "some" music can be paralleled with a visual medium like film (and The Doors, Floyd and even early Alice Cooper are good examples where the visuals invoked are as important as the music itself), just as "some" music can be compared to sculpture, painting or tone poems or whatever cross-fertilization you care to employ. But the emphasis here is Progressive Rock, and the prime motivation is listening.

moshkito wrote:

This is the hard part to discuss here, even with folks like you. The arts are ALL a parallel, and very few, if ANY, do not have similarities to ther folks around them. But it is difficult stating that about pop music, if that is all you know, and then you spring the idea that Mosh is messed up. It's "probably" a fact!!!!! You don't go to the Met, or to the local Orchestra even, and neither do I. It's almost that all the appreciation for anything else is gone, and that slants your relative appreciation and comments.

See, this is the part where I feel like going off on you because you don't know my experiences and you tend to minimize what other people say here. You do that nearly every goddamn time.

I have been to the Met and Carnegie Hall (although I despise NY and haven't been there for years). But I have been a season ticket holder for the Detroit Symphony (internationally acclaimed with some truly fine recordings, by the way). SO DON'T TELL ME WHAT THE HELL I DO OR DON'T DO! This is a progressive rock site. It is, unsurprisingly, about progressive rock. I could type or talk just as passionately about Elmore James or Mississippi John Hurt if this were a blues site. Or we could talk about Django Reinhardt's burnt left hand, but that's not germane to this forum. There is progressive rock, and that is only loosely tied to other progressive music for the most part. There are infusions from elsewhere, certainly, but I like my rock, just as I like blues or classical, and seldom do I listen to them together. Call it musical compartmentalization.

moshkito wrote:

I don't say that you are wrong, you, AS WELL, have outstanding points, and the only comment I would like to make is that we stick to the subject, that you are accusing me of generalities that I do not even come close to as well, so that means we're both shooting blanks ... but you can ALWAYS ask me ...what do you mean by this in specific? You don't do that to me!

From reading your posts, I would say that specificity is not your forte. I asked you to be specific in other threads, but your answer was always "what's the point?" as if whatever divine revelation you would utter would be over my head. Which, of course, only irks me further. But I must say, your current post actually exhibits humanistic behavior, not some strange cross-hybridization of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Timothy Leary. Keep it going.

moshkito wrote:

Film, other than Hollywood's hold in America, still has a very significant individual streak that most can not handle, or enjoy. You really should see how many folks walkout of a Gaspar Noe film, or what's his name Dutch guy with all the psychedelic stuff, which even I have walked out of! But I walk out of X-Men after 15 minutes! Or Harry Potter after 20 minutes! It's utter crap, despite people liking it, but because of its "fame" everyone thinks it is not crap.

Yes, the vast majority of Hollywood movies suck. Did you somehow think I prefer crappy movies, or that I am unable to ascertain a good film from a bad one? That's about as off-base as thinking I prefer top ten hits or American Idol. I assure you, I don't.

moshkito wrote:

A definition of "progressive music" and "prog" only needs a bit of cleaning up ... I call it just needs a shoeshine and a bath! It's an old, dirty and too many doves and other birds have spat and pooped on it. I would love to see us clean it up a bit! And again, saying that "keyboards" are necessary or mandatory, is like saying that violins are mandatory in all orchestras, and it might be true for Beethoven and Tchaikovsky times, but I doubt that all the music in the area was ever shown to everyone that didn't have violins, like you can do today. And then Bernard Herrman, did it without a single violin for so many films that we still go ... wow! ... that's cool! Some of these parallels went to music and probably went on to affect what we see and do, that we don't even talk about!

But Bernard Herrmann's most striking film score employed shrieking violins, and as far as bird poop, Herrmann did sound design for Hitchcock's The Birds, which has no music at all, only electronically generated chirping and cawing.

But does the definition of progressive rock need sprucing up? Perhaps in its present incarnation (whatever that is), but the current definition works just fine for the mythical age of prog between 1969 and 1976 (or 78 or whatever), when no one I knew even used the term "progressive rock". Back then, it was good rock or bad rock, great music or music that sucked. It just so happened that many of the bands we now consider to be "prog rock" also happened to be bands that didn't suck. If you know what I mean.

moshkito wrote:

This stuff has a way of really dismantling the definitions. And I, like you, want a solid definition so all of us, and everyone else, runs into a dead end when they try to break it apart! That's all I would love to see, and it can be done, but we have to get off our high horses and the continuing saying nothing part of this ... and stick to details. The keyboard one is the perfect example of how bad a definition can be. I like the joke that came out of Brazil about a guy that turned off this massive set of keyboards, and someone asked him why? Because I wanted to play jazz, not other music. I have to admit I still love that cartoon and wish I could find it and post it here! It came out in the Sao Paolo newspaper 30 years ago, and I can not tell yo who it was digging at!

Again, many of the greatest bands in the High Ages of Prog had a keyboard: Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, Tull, ELP, Genesis (and earlier, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, The Nice, Soft Machine, etc.) -- even bands on the periphery of prog like Deep Purple, and yes, Led Zeppelin employed keys. It was sort of like the obligatory drum solo that is now unheard of. And cow bells. *Cues Leslie West and Mountain*

Does it apply now? I doubt it (unless you're Big Big Train trying awfully hard to make the reincarnation of Trick of the Tail). But as I said in my previous post, I think there are gradations of prog, and I suppose there should be an epochal designation of what prog was, is and will be. Except any music that employs death growls. Sorry, nothing progressive about that. Wink

Edited by The Dark Elf - May 27 2014 at 21:25

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

richardh

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 26140

Posted: May 28 2014 at 01:09

The music was defined by the musicians and the musicians that they influenced that came later. The reason keyboards are so closely associated with prog is because it was an easy way to play expansive music in a live arena. You also had new unique sounds that a guitar could not produce. Remember Keith Emerson taking the back off the organ to get different sounds? That is the epitomy of progressive thinking in rock music.

'Progressive rock' as we know it only existed when it was happening which was about 1969 to maybe 1972. I guess I can expect another lame response to that. After that it became 'prog'. Ian Anderson has talked about this so believe him if you don't want to believe me.

Edited by richardh - May 28 2014 at 01:10

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7946

Posted: May 28 2014 at 01:34

LostWaxMuseum wrote:

Eetu Pellonpää wrote:

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen?

About OP's post, I personally think that it is most interesting to try build Your personal world view based to concepts fitting Your own mind, the consensus of these with majority being peripheral on certain areas of life, f.ex. how to define some music. If one does not build self-image on values relying too tightly to certain movements, I think it is easier to be open for new people, ideas and be more independent than stuck to mass movements gathering people together. With short life experience, I think people often have different understandings on terms defining unvague concepts like "prog" or "work", making discussions yearn patience and realization the answer won't be found mutually. It could be found personally, but still the search for the answer is more important and giving than the utopia of final discovery.

I quess tight definitions are needed to human psyche for building a comphendable perspection to life, but realized it being a trap, and got cured from it. (Where am I BTW? help!

)

I agree. I was hoping to discover music I never heard before, but I think I started a different conversation than I expected to. I probably should have asked something like: "what are your top 10 favorite non-prog bands?"

That might have been a more direct way to get the information I was looking for, but I was hoping participants might describe, in detail, ensembles they enjoy and what it is about them they feel is progressive.

Just a little off-topic comment. As much as I fancy myself as Spiderman, I don't really like spiders.

No offense.

Back on topic, I follow Mirror Image's definition. It's not the personal definition I had before I came to the site, but I was happy to adapt. I used to make a distinction between Prog (=Symph Prog) and US West Coast Art Rock (=RIO/Avant, e.g Zappa, Beefheart, Henry Kaiser). I now happily include RIO/Avant altogether in Prog. This hasn't lead me to include any more mainstream bands that are not included as such in the site, although I haven't tried to confirm that. I would not include jazz-rock in my personal definition except in as far as it was one of the early pioneers. I would not, for instance, include Spyro Gyra as a Prog band.

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7946

Posted: May 28 2014 at 01:45

It's not just about who is a Prog band or musician and who is not. Some artists have Prog albums and non-Prog albums. I don't consider Steve Hackett's - Blues With a Feeling or his classical albums like Momentum to be Prog albums, but I enjoy them all the same.

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415

Posted: May 28 2014 at 07:53

The Dark Elf wrote:

...

I note with amusement that, as is your proclivity, you did not bother to include your "personal definition of prog" (which was a request of the original poster); instead, you once again try to belittle and denigrate the "we" in your post -- and "we" is, I assume, everyone that is not in your highly eccentric orbit -- while offering nothing concrete about your own definition....

moshkito wrote:

So you now are the spokesperson for the "We"?

Congratulations on your promotion. May it serve you well!

Since there can be only one of "you" in your altered, often bizarre, plane of existence, we unfortunately are relegated to a lower life-form status in which people listen to music they enjoy without worrying about pushing elitist visions of modal legacies in popular music.

moshkito wrote:

Sadly, you are being quite blind when you do not bother to read that I DO have a definition, and that I was specifically opposed to some details in it which are stupid, not musically educated, and strictly based on its sound, not the music itself. IF, and this is IF -- because you won't do it -- you plug half of this music to a score sheet and take the "effects" out", there is nothing in the music that shapes it any different than anything else that has ever been done.

Now you have transitioned from the "we" to the "you": meaning "me" directly; in which case, I would suggest that your reference to what I believe in regards to musical theory is complete cow dung. You haven't the slightest inkling what I believe, because you spend most of the time talking out of your posterior, and from your muffled perch ensconced in your emboweled nether-regions you only expound the flatulent clarion calls of a sham shaman. You don't listen, you expound. You don't reply, you equivocate.This bit of lunacy is particularly rankling:

moshkito wrote:

For you the progress of music is based on the "effects" and not the instruments themselves. You might actually be right there, since 100 years from now there won't be orchestras, and all the instruments will be played on an iPod/Pad like thing, and everyone will think it's great music, if not top ten!

Please direct me to any quote anywhere in the history of this forum where I ever came vaguely near to what you claim I believe. Go ahead. It doesn't exist. But you don't give a damn about what anyone believes here, so you fabricate delusional dialogues with yourself to suit your own misguided agenda, which I am not entirely sure you even comprehend.

moshkito wrote:

I still hold on, perhaps erroneously, to a bit of music history and the learning of an instrument and a combination of folks together. I still look as a "group" as the new composer of the future, not a single entity, as has been the case for hundreds of years.

But for you, there is no music definition, that is personal. I've been about that personal idea from day one, you just don't like it because it is not a socially accepted and kissed concept (at first!) in front of you for you to applaud with everyone else. If you study music history, then you are 100 years behind!

You may be surprised, dear Pedro, that I sometimes agree with your comments (The Doors being progressive, for instance), but those are far and few between. I have no patience with the ones that are typed when you are evidently heavily medicated and are deriving errant messages from a garbled dream-state.

As for me, I don't hold to a stagnant definition of "progressive rock" because the target keeps shifting, and has changed since the concept was first defined in the late 60s/early 70s. I heard "progressive rock" in many bands that are not necessarily characterized as progressive on this site. It seemed to me to be a rite of passage for many bands in the late 60s who shifted from blues-based riffs to a more expansive set of compositional tools. Many bands that are considered prog on this site haven't been prog for ages. Oh well.

Although I'm in broad general agreement with your post Dark Elf, ain't this dialogue with Moshkito getting just a tad too personal for its own good hereabouts?

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7946

Posted: May 28 2014 at 11:12

richardh wrote:

The music was defined by the musicians and the musicians that they influenced that came later. The reason keyboards are so closely associated with prog is because it was an easy way to play expansive music in a live arena. You also had new unique sounds that a guitar could not produce. Remember Keith Emerson taking the back off the organ to get different sounds? That is the epitomy of progressive thinking in rock music.

I think the idea that Progressive Rock was keyboard dominated is way overblown. Keith Emerson doing quite cruel things to his organ was easily matched by guitarists like Steve Hackett and Robert Fripp and others. The rise of interesting timbres came really with the increasing use of stompboxes. Guitarists were using them with their guitars. Keyboardists were using them with their organs. Synthesizers of course trickled in late in most cases past your 1972 date. There were bands with keyboardists and no guitarist, but there were bands with guitarists and no keyboardist (e.g. Jade Warrior). Much as I love Ian, I don't think a lot of his comments on Prog(ressive Rock) Tull's relationship to it are terribly cogent.

The Dark Elf View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12681

Posted: May 28 2014 at 21:29

ExittheLemming wrote:

Although I'm in broad general agreement with your post Dark Elf, ain't this dialogue with Moshkito getting just a tad too personal for its own good hereabouts?

Why, yes, I believe you are right. Which is why I showed my kinder, gentler side in my follow-up post....

Wait, I don't have a kinder, gentler side. Never mind.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

richardh

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 26140

Posted: May 29 2014 at 01:03

HackettFan wrote:

I wasn't going in the direction that progressive rock was just about keyboards but clearly the most successful bands of the time both creatively and commercially were keyboard dominated. It was only Rush much later that proved you could avoid keyboards to a large extent although even saying that 2112 would not be as good without Geddy's synths and this also very true of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves. Fripp used the Mellotron extensively of course. Starless without keyboard? I think not! I would go as far as to say that prog rock would not have anything like the same impact without the keyboard. That was the key instrument Smile

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415

Posted: May 29 2014 at 08:35

richardh wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

I have to agree with Hackett fan here as notwithstanding the unresolvable debate about 'most creatively successful' etc we can at least concentrate on the Prog big boys: Floyd, Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson all used keyboards extensively but none of them in my view could be viewed as keyboard dominated bands. (Gilmour, Hackett, Howe and Fripp were demonstrably contrary in that regard) The only remaining member of the biggies were ELP who were, by dint of comparison, almost an exclusively keyboard dominated band. It should also be borne in mind that three of these bands are unequivocally Symphonic Prog in orientation and no, texture does not dictate content but yeah, perhaps keyboards do hold sway in that sub genre but for the greater Prog realm that ain't necessarily so.

Edited by ExittheLemming - May 29 2014 at 08:36

terramystic View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 02 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 776

Posted: June 01 2014 at 15:44

ExittheLemming wrote:

Nothing wrong with quoting third party definitions but given that the name of this thread is 'A Personal definition of Prog' ain't this tantamount to an admission you have precisely zero opinions of your own?

You don't read precisely. You missed the personal definition part (prog rock = artistic rock).

-Radioswim- View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 15 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 331

Posted: June 02 2014 at 01:54

I could die happy, if not another thread was started about the 'definition of prog'. It's just a tired discussion. Just read the other dozens of threads that have already been beat'n to death, or even better bring them back from the dead! (please don't!)

Kill this thread, for the love of all things Zappa.

Dust in the Kitchen

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: June 02 2014 at 04:20

Imo, it's all just a matter of acceptance; progressive rock is what we hear and then we accept it as such. Therefore, there are no rules or pedantic, scholastical definition that could explain all styles of progressive rock.

Edited by Svetonio - June 02 2014 at 04:20

rdtprog

Special Collaborator

Heavy, RPI, Symph, JR/F Canterbury Teams

Joined: April 04 2009
Location: Mtl, QC
Status: Offline
Points: 5132

Posted: June 02 2014 at 05:36

-Radioswim- wrote:

I could die happy, if not another thread was started about the 'definition of prog'. It's just a tired discussion. Just read the other dozens of threads that have already been beat'n to death, or even better bring them back from the dead! (please don't!)

Kill this thread, for the love of all things Zappa.

You might as well close all threads in the forum, because as far as i know prog archives is about progressive rock and that a forum is suppose to be open for all discussion. Maybe you are personally tired of this specific subject, but there maybe someone that want to express his thought on that subject.

Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415

Posted: June 02 2014 at 06:17

terramystic wrote:

You don't read precisely. You missed the personal definition part (prog rock = artistic rock).

Well OK but it hardly amounts to much of a demarcation criteria e.g. the Cure, Joy Division, Cocteau Twins and say, Magazine are generally considered to be artistic rock (habitually lassoed in the Post Punk corral) but clearly none are prog rock. Similarly, it could be argued that Cockney Rebel, Mott the Hoople and the Tubes might also qualify as artistic rock (from the Glam stable) but none are prog rock. This strikes me as a dogeared case of failing to make the distinction between Prog the noun versus progressive the adjective. I read fine thanks all the same Big smile