Survival in a mean world, I presume.

artistically very ambitious music

That doesn't sound very positively to me.

Btw, very interesting topic. 

I like this having of Rock as starting point.

I have not listened to Unexpect so I can't comment on this particular case.

Hi,

Welcome btw.

I think that you are overdoing its thoughts and meanings.

When it all started, it was not about this or that, or complexity ... it was, for the most part about the experience, and adding some things that a player had tried and liked and could do ... it was NOT the showcase that is today ... "LOOK ... I'm progressive ... LOOK ... I'm prog!" kind of thing. It's hard to say, for example, that Miles did his thing because he was progressive, or that John McLaughlin did his thing because he was progressive ... they did what felt right to them, and in many cases they simply showcased their individuality ... and fudge the definition and anything else ... it was about their individuality to take you away and fly with their music!

It's really simple.

At the time, most of it in the late 60's and early 70's was about breaking radio's dominance and controls of a lot of music, and specially in America the FM radio was not yet "controlled" and was mostly independent all the way to the end of the 70's when the great American Rape took place by the commercial everything and all stations were bought to take off the hands of individuals.

The great thing of the early days FM was the fact that it allowed DJ's to play their own thing, and the tastes were wild and far out, and the mixes were ... great ... specially compared to today's progressive crap shows that can not do something that is away from the format radio of the AM dial.

To be honest, there is no "meaning" and this was the harsh truth that allowed geeks to create a definition that is the least musical of any definition of music in the past 1000 years. It's ridiculous and no one that did that even said ... wait, you telling me that Mozart's stuff had no solos? And because they were different and not quite the same theme as the bottom line of the piece, that it was not progressive?

It's best, for me, to not EVER consider the DEFINITION the important part ... YOU either LISTEN to music or you don't and some might be considered this or that, and what not ... but if your "tastes" are defined by one genre or another, ONLY, I recommend you quit listening now ... your genre will be dead soon, and you will wonder why the music died! Not to mention that your ears got tired of it!

So, get into the MUSIC ... and forget the DEFINITION. You will appreciate this many years from now when you have heard and seen a lot more than just 3 bands.

 

1: The rise of technology such as the synthesiser.

2: The musicians were educated but liked the energy of rock music.

 

A matter of taste, and it's good with variety.

er...wait a minute..that's the meaning of life..never mind.

Hi,

I would say that the synthesizer helped, however, that might just be what I consider an "excuse" because in the late 60's there was a lot of music that is regarded as "progressive" that did not exactly employ a synthesizer in the way that we think ... King Crimson would be a great example.

That the musicians were educated, is something that is different everywhere. You can say that EASILY about Canterbury, for example, where so many of those folks ended up being instructors. I don't think that the American version of the early progressive, considered "psychedelic many times, is that educated, unless you separate The Doors from it ... they were at UCLA and a very high level of music, film and art studies, unlike most rock bands, that end up together because they want to play rock'n'roll. For example, even though they became very well versed in music, the SF scene had its roots in the street, not in schools. And NY is even worse, since a band that sold 10K albums in a city of 14+million people, would all of a sudden be the star, and pushed by a record company. In Chicago the band of the same name, makes it hard to not think that some of its members were no musically educated. The things they did in the first 4 or 5 albums, in many cases would be considered advanced music, and yet it was on a band that everyone considered pop music because of one song and hit.

Germany, was influenced by the music schools, specially in Berlin where a lot of the electronic music came from, and a lot of composers were around. Both Can, TD, and others have discussed this a lot. Can folks were highly educated musically, but AD2's folks were not quite so, and made their way via the commune thing and deciding to do something better than just a drum circle which was what AD1 was really about. However, Renate has said that they were thinking classical music and its flow for their early days, although after "Vive La Trance" I think it all became just a song, hoping to sell ... and the early days and improvisations were gone (Apocalyptic Bore lyrics).

France was probably following (sort of) the Jacques Brel thing and the Brecht/Weill school of things, if one looks at ANGE and how it ended up bringing a bunch of bands alive. However, its "laissez-faire" in the arts and music all of a sudden became something via Heldon, and even though Richard Pinhas discussed his thoughts and politics in EUROCK, in the end we ended up thinking it was just an individual thing. 

Italy was more classically influenced, and it showed in PFM with it doing bits and pieces of material here and there, but they also were good story tellers in the early days, something they forgot about later. Banco is highly "classical" in terms of composition itself, so it's very easy to say that at least a few members of the band were highly educated.

England, is difficult. I consider Rick Wakeman a school drop out, so to speak, since he can only copy the old styles and things, and when he created something new for TFTO which was demanded based on the design, lyrics and work, he promptly decided that it was crap, and his curry was better. Keith Emerson, I would say was probably the best educated of all the keyboard players, and seeing his work being done solo on piano (Rachel Flowers) immediately tells you how incredible of a composer he was ... and seeing the scores, via Daily Doug ... dude ... 9 out of 10 bands would not be able to EVER look at those scores ... maybe follow for 5 minutes, but playing them? Not likely!

It's interesting, but the definition, and meaning of progressive and prog, do not line up with music history and its evolution since so much of the comments ignore history altogether.

In my opinion it should be called Post Psychedelic Rock Music because that's how it evolved. You listen to the bands that followed the dream circa 1970-1975 (ELP, Yes and the like) . Personally I was always very suspicious of the whole jazz rock fusion scene that seemed to take the place of 'prog rock'. I've never liked that stuff but that's just my taste.

If you don't like Jazz-Rock, then maybe you haven't yet given an audience to the sound of Audience. 

Friends, prog fans and countrymen, lend me your ears for an audience with AUDIENCE, one of the finest Jazz-Rock bands ever to emerge from this green and pleasant land of England. AUDIENCE are a band who deserve to be heard by a wider audience. Tell all of your friends about them and tell your FRIEND'S FRIEND'S FRIEND too. If you've ever wanted to admire the view from THE HOUSE ON THE HILL, then look no further than the rousing and uplifting music of AUDIENCE. This early 1970's band are still ALIVE & KICKIN' & SCREAMIN' & SHOUTIN' well into the 21st century with their marvellous UNCHAINED melodies. AUDIENCE are a much-under-appreciated band who deserve to be legends in their lifetime, unlike some of today's modern bands, who only deserve to be legends in their own LUNCH-time. Their four rare studio albums are worthy of being passed down through the generations to your children, and to your children's children's children too, and if you don't already have a son or daughter, then now might be as good a time as any to take your wife upstairs and make one. 

Hi,

Absolutely. And it was very visible in Europe, and America, if we look at France, Italy, Germany, Holland and so on. England, was a bit different and I think their media "forced" changes, by trashing things that they did not understand, forcing bands to make simpler stuff and be "more direct" in their lyrics, so they would know what it is about. To me, this is a bad issue, since all of a sudden, the music itself is not as free as it was before, and then for my tastes it became "forced" and not as intuitive as before. The sad thing, is how REFUGEE was not able to continue because Patrick left for YES, in what was a bad situation and he was let go very soon after, without having a chance to help or improve. That left PM ending up in The Moody Blues later, and not being as good either since he could not add to the musicianship of the group as much as they should have allowed to help develop the band further ... by that time it was about the "songs", and not the music.

Metal, however, had already set its foot in England and a few other places. One can almost include Alvin Lee at Woodstock as a great example of something that helped Steve Howe develop, and do.

richardh wrote: ... Personally I was always very suspicious of the whole jazz rock fusion scene that seemed to take the place of 'prog rock'. I've never liked that stuff but that's just my taste.

Hi,

There are some exceptions. RETURN TO FOREVER  and then, folks like JOHN MCLAUGHLIN stand out ... and you can see a lot of John in the work that Steve Howe does ... where his "riff" ends up becoming a major part of the whole piece in some cases.

But, it's even more difficult to not see how Miles Davis was an influence ... the "I do what I want" thing, was never questioned when Steve Howe went to the left and all over! And the same thing for many other rock guitarists that over did the "solo" by going from here to the Moon and back, and I can't help mentioning Dream Theater in this situation and how "metal", picked things up so much, even though the sound and structure is different ... the guitar still did its own thing, and everyone just had to stay with it, which is not too different than what Miles did, and showed everyone ... IT CAN BE DONE. We just never thought that "individualism" was important and valuable, and all of a sudden, it is!

Miles, and a lot of the jazz fusion folks are not my favorites either, but when you see the Miles special (not sure where I saw it, btw), you find out really quick, that even Miles has no idea what he is going to do, but he is courageous enough to try whatever comes to him, and something always does, which is more of a factor about his own musical ability, than it is mere chance or luck! 

The only jazz fusion I do not quite follow is the one that is ... just that ... fusion for the sake of fusion, and I have always felt that some personality was missing in many of these bands ... but that could be just my view and opinion. The best example is the number of bands wanting to be added to PA, and their work, is not really that original, or to my ears ... interesting!

And what's the conclusion regarding the topic? 

Simply that I can't imagine a life without Progressive Rock, even though I've been far removed from prog for the last few days, listening to the funky soul of George Clinton (Dr. Funkenstein), as well as listening to Demis Roussos warbling his way through over twenty albums, where the only thing progressive about Demis Roussos is his albums get progressively worse. 

Personally, I’ve had a conclusion thanks to moshkito’s remarks. This topic may well not matter. I reckon it may be a better idea to listen to whatever music according to your own feelings instead of trying hard to find a meaning or definition unless you’re a music reviewer or philosopher.

In the early days, I think there were some distinctly 'proggy' sounds - Canterbury, Symphonic, JR/F, Zeuhl, etc., that were actually distinct types of music themselves. But they had some common elements that at the time were new to rock music, like: Long compositions, Time Signature Changes, use of non-standard instruments, integration with other genres. And the name 'progressive' implied anything that pushed the boundaries of rock could be considered part of this genre.

As well, there was a 'movement' aspect to it, but that movement, as much as it exists now, is a reaction to the past and the output of it, maybe even more so a reaction to what is popular on the radio, which it arguably was a reaction to in the early days of the genre.

So all these things that tied it into one genre that were never really very clear or exclusively owned by prog, exist all over the place. Sigur Ros is of course prog because they use non-rock instruments. Dream Theatre is of course prog because they have long compositions. King Gizzard + the Lizard Wizard are of course prog because they sound like the psych bands of old and change their approach all the time, . And so on. But the meaning of the genre, due to its inherent fuzziness, has just grown and grown, to the point that things that may have been spiritual cousins of prog are now considered part of the genre, and then thing that sound like them are also invited into the genre.

So it means many disparate things, and in some ways, it means nothing, and ...

well, I still discovered tons of good music by following the path of "What do people who like this music like me?" discover. But I can never say that when I started looking for more music like Yes, that I would have considered Bjork to be an appropriate recommendation. Took me years to get to the point where I had broadened my appreciation of music far beyond what I was originally looking for that I could be open to such a comparison. In the process, though, I became a little jaded about the value  of the term 'prog'.

Silly wabbit, your confusing it with acne on the scrotum.....Google it! 

Well, reflecting about Prog and better understanding of it doesn't make me appreciate the music less, on the contrary. 

- But that's again a matter of preferences. 

Which means, Progressive Rock is very meaningful for at least some people. 

Hi,

I was thinking close to the gutter!

Psychedelic Paul must have hacked your login......Or assumed control of your mind.....

I don't know quite what to think about it myself, but it sounds impressing and inspiring. 

That's great, while this kind of Dream has never got into me, even I've tried hardly several times - too much Neo-Prog over it. 

Prog wouldn't exist without reflecting about it, and reflection is the very core of the human nature. 

I'm surely not the only one inspired by Paul. 

 I wonder if this gentleman owns a passport?

Either that or he studied international relations. 

I pardon these gentlemen that this gentleman doesn't find anything funny or to be critical about here. It may easy be some misunderstanding or different use of words. Or am I too silly? 

Aren't they pronounced the same way?

well then, you understand his confusion. 

Exactly. But the weird thing (and my main point) was that he was a fan early Genesis but apparently never heard the term prog. What does he think  it is? Classic rock? Classic rock radio only plays the later Genesis. Not the earlier stuff. Maybe very rarely something like Squonk or the title track to lamb (maybe) but for the most part only follow you follow me and later. 

I recently came up with a phrase that I think perfectly describes progressive rock: "When the musician makes the rules, it's progressive rock. When the rules make the musician, then you can be 99% sure it's not progressive rock".

I think progressive rock has the meaning of "enlightening". To urge people to think for themselves and to see beyond not just a song but life itself (otherwise what's the point of art?). Just look at the best albums of the sub-genre. In them you will find theatre, philosophy, architecture, instant and gradual evolution, atmospheres, laughter and tears. You will find a percentage of life that is not usually found in other types of music. You will find an existential greatness that will leave you face first time you listen to it. You will find divine inspiration.

Yes. I'm sure the answer is 42.

That's terrible, but what do you think about the meaning of Prog?

That's brilliant, thank you.   

Hi,

I like this ... and the sad thing is that many "fans" here do not seem to appreciate this, and will go gagagoogoo over a rehash by a well known band, specially when there really is nothing in it "making any rules". 

This is one of the reasons why the new PT, or even the JT song, are not that great for me ... they are not making any rules ... they are simply following a tried and true bit of success ... even with sounds that had been used before to "remind us" of the good stuff.

I would also like to improve that line so it would say something about a song ... if you are making the rules, it isn't exactly a song --SINCE YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING ANYTHING! -- and this has been one of my pet peeves ... the majority of stuff today, is all "songs" and the talent tree is getting washed away by a commerciality that needs to die, although some folks here don't want it to die ... how easy, and how soon, they forget what got "progressive" started in the first place! 

The irony, is ... ghastly!

About Avant-Prog I'd say, RIO and some else of it has very good ideology, but Avant-Prog as a whole and the way PA defines it,

that is minus Zeuhl, stylistically speaking is surely mostly for feinschmeckers.

Hi,

Yeah, no and maybe. I, personally, do not quite listen to "Zeuhl" that much.. I find it too much a copy, but that might just be my ears. I can put on Carmina Burana and all of a sudden Magma sounds great.

But, in Europe, there is a lot of music that comes from the higher levels of education in music and some of those folks end putting together things that sometimes ... are not for my ears ... but it took me a while to  enjoy Henry Cow, Dagmar, and many of those folks way back when ... it was so much the Universitarian style of music creation for my ears ... and this is something that you don't see a whole lot here in America, since it looks like folks don't go for the art of it as much as they do for their ability to gain either an audience or money from it.

As to it being considered "progressive", I have my doubts, but I don't like to suggest that one thing is this and the other is not. I prefer to stick with the "origin" of the music itself and the artist, something that takes away the comparison and the comments by others, specially when they hear a "sound" that is like someone else's. Reminds me of the early days, when people thought that Banco, PFM and le Orme sounded like ELP ... and that is a case of the worst plugged up ears ever.

But I've noticed that some of the "feinschmeckers" can be fond of some poppish stuff, as well.

Prog is like a beanstalk. Isn't it? 

 

What do I mean?  Here are some lyrics:

Voivod - "Pre-Ignition"  (excerpt)

from the album Nothingface (1989)

You get that reference I take it. 

Yes, I think I do. 

Actually, I don't think it's that bad to compare Prog to beanstalk. 

And you got that reference too, even it was from Shine on Brightly. 

Of course I did. I'm the one who said it. 

Actually, after I said it I listened a little bit on youtube and some were saying that "In Held Twas In I" was the first true prog epic. It's hard to disagree with that. I wonder how many of them heard the Transatlantic version though. Shine On Brightly is a good album though. I heard the title track on Sirius XM deep tracks just the other day actually.

Okay, then how come you said it? I thought it was because you could remember that I once wrote in a thread

David_D wrote: A Neosaur asked a Progasaur: "How am I doing?" The Progasaur answered: "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

I said it because it fit. I was only thinking of the line in the Procol Harum song where he said it in response to the question of what is the meaning of life ( "life is like a beanstalk isn't it?"). I had no idea you mentioned it before and never saw your quote before. Maybe just a strange coincidence.