Can Pop be Prog?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28301
Printed Date: April 28 2024 at 14:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Can Pop be Prog?
Posted By: aapatsos
Subject: Can Pop be Prog?
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 12:21
|
I was wondering about this and particularly after a discussion I had with a friend
Thinking about bands like Muse (for example): the description from a friend - fanatic about Muse - is pop-rock
So I was wondering how much pop there is in prog and if pop bands can be also classified as prog
IMO, the combination is very hard (and I don't see bands like Alan Parsons Project as pop, at least, the first albums)
is there a pop-prog genre
 ? |
Replies:
Posted By: crimson magus
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 12:42
|
A prog song, album, can become a pop work, if there is a key-factor which will draw the masses. You mentioned Muse, they have a progressive sound, but the voice of the singer and the easy - listening formula of the songs make it pop (the key-factors). Pop is not exactly a genre but music which is listened by the majority of people in a country, or the world, or a specific place. So yes, progressive music can be pop. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/chresto/?chartstyle=omgstfu"> 
|
Posted By: coffeeintheface
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 12:47
|
Definately. A perfect example is Bohemian Rhapsody, which i consider to be a prog song even though some people would say they're not a 100% prog band. ------------- OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project) nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas) |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 12:54
^  I can't here any pop in Bohemian Rhapsody
|
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 12:55
interesting reply CM
but I would consider pop as a genre...
 |
crimson magus wrote:Posted By: R_DeNIRO
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 13:13
|
Bohemian Rhapsody is a very famous song, but not pop music.
Muse have prog elements, but it's not prog at all.
Pop music could never be prog, but could get a poppy sound (example: Marillion's Misplaced Childhood). Anyway, the sound don't define the genre. Prog music, for example, doesn't have an own unique sound (think in the different sound of bands like KC, Camel, Opeth, ELP, Mars Volta, Dream Theater, Zappa, Mr. Bungle, Triana, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd...) but have common factors (in terms of composition, structure, etc..).
------------- We were always be much human than we whish to be. |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 13:14
|
Listen to A.C.T. They are "prog-pop" if you ask me. -------------  |
Posted By: clairvoyant
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 13:31
| If you ask me, a lot of Peter Gabriel's solo work is pop/prog |
Posted By: Paulieg
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 13:37
| I think bands like Spocks Beard are pop prog. Not my cup of tea, though. |
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 14:12
It was number 1 in the UK singles chart for several weeks, sold millions and a large percentage of the population can sing along word for word (if not note for note). If that isn't pop, I don't know what is.
I could also mention the Beach Boys here - Good Vibrations is the obvious example, but have you ever really listened to California Girls? There's a hell of a lot going on in that song - and then there's Heroes and Villains, complex as anything by most prog bands.
Let's face it, if Silver Machine by Hawkwind can be considered prog rock I don't see why the infinitely more sophisticated work of Brian Wilson shouldn't be thought of as prog pop. ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 14:15
|
Well, as far as prog being poppy, take a look at Porcupine Tree. Great band, and they manage to incorporate elements of prog while simultaneously having pop based melodies/harmonies -------------  |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 14:15
| What about It Bites? "Calling all the heroes" was a pop hit in the 80s, yet there are recognised as a prog band. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 14:29
|
Well, since Prog's origin comes from Pop music, I wouldn't say that Pop is some opposite of Prog. ------------- sig |
Posted By: Sit Ubu Sit
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 15:04
|
cm's answer is right on the money. I believe that "pop" is short for popular. If a prog band releases a song that is picked up by the masses, and played to death on one of those godawful "pop" stations, then it becomes a pop tune.
Who woulda thunk??
|
Posted By: sm sm
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 15:29
|
A lot of 60's bands were sick and tired of playing boring 4/4, 3 minute songs, hence the Beatles transformed from "I wanna hold your hand" to "Elinor Rigby. On the other hand, a lot of bands either run out of creativity or no longer want to starve, and start to write pop songs, hence Genesis transformed from "afterglow" to "invisable touch"
|
Posted By: Gravity Eyelids
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 16:35
|
Blackfield Is "prog-pop" ------------- Into this wild Abyss the fiend Stood on the brink of Hell and looked a while, Pondering his Voyage. |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 17:09
Bands can make more than one type of song. Muse is a perfect example. Songs like Citizen Erased and the ever-loved Knights of Cydonia are prog while they have other songs (Cave, Time is Running Out, etc.) that are much less prog and more pop-ish. That's how come they're only "prog-related" on the site. Bands can expand beyond one genre, despite the differences (remember "rapping labrie/geddy")  -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 18:06
|
I'd like to see "pop" and "prog" as two opposites. But sometimes opposites unite.
As to bands like Spocks Beard, Porcupine Tree, Blackfield, Arena and many others of the kind, I'd prefer to call them "mainstream prog" rather than "pop-prog".
------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: lightbulb_son
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 19:02
Exactly. And I absolutely love them for it. Great debut album I can't wait for the follow up.
In my opinion a lot of SW's side-projects are prog-pop. Porcupine Tree certainly started down that path, but now they're adding a little more edge to the music (which I'm not a fan of). No-Man is my favorite SW side-project and I consider that "dream-pop". ------------- When the world is sick Can't no one be well But I dreamt we were all beautiful and strong 
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 19:56
I think you would need to define "pop" as a sound now or then? To call something like Spock's beard as poppy is a little strange because I can find no other pop music like it on the radio or MTV type of pop stations today. Do they sound like Begonce or Jessica Simpelton? I think not.
-------------  "What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Inferno
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 20:27
|
Prog is ambitious pop songs with touch of Classical, jazz, rock, psychadelic, experimental, metal etc. Pop is not a genre cause there is pop in jazz, rock, blues, ballads, alternative etc. Pop is only for mainstream...there is no popular genre |
Posted By: -Radioswim-
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 20:49
I think Crimson hit it right on the nose, just as "Prog" is not really a "genre" it definitly can be used to classify a song/album/artist. I'm not going to say anything further, becuase Crimson pretty much took the words out of my mouth. edit- holy cow something is wrong with the forum code... my reply is within the quote, and aapatsos' reply is within crimson's quote... -------------  Dust in the Kitchen |
Posted By: coffeeintheface
Date Posted: September 07 2006 at 23:40
well you're right, but I considered it such because it was a smash hit. It's rare for a smash hit to not be a verse/chorus/verse/chorus/crappy bridge/chorus deal. ------------- OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project) nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas) |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 01:53
|
Many Prog groups have had pop singles in the charts, would that make them a pop group? possibly, a few hit songs in the shop window to invite customers inside...10cc had a lot of hits during the 70's, and even Atomic Rooster and Rare Bird had singles in the charts, and Deep Purple, Supertramp, ELO, there's loads! In those days pop covered a much wider spectrum of music than it does now, today what is referred to as pop covers very few genres of music, though of course there are exceptions which "pop" up now and then! -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 02:06
|
I beliecve that despite POP is the short term for popular, it involves much more, done only for commercial success, easy listening, simple, MTV, Commercial radios, Music Industry support, structure mainly Verse - Chorus - Verse, etc.
Prog in essense is the opposite, complex structures, Art before than Commercialism (better if a Prog album is successful of course), challenging, experimental, ambituous, etc.
Now, there are points where both opposites almost touch themselves, some artists may release prog and POP material, some POP artist may make a Prog song or album, a Prog artist may turn POP and of course borderline music but I really don't believe in such thing as Pop - Prog.
A genre called Pop/Prog is a natural contradiction IMO, but this is only my opinion.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 04:46
|
Have you ever heard 10CC's 'How dare you' album? It starts with a fantastic overture which is every bit as proggy as the instrumentals on SELLING ENGLAND BY THE POUND or WIND AND WUTHERING. It also has highly melodious songs on it (e.g. 'I'm Mandy, fly me') with exciting proggy middle sections. Now 10CC is generally considered a pop (or 'soft rock') band, mainly because they had hits (most notably, the wonderful 'I'm not in love'), but their early albums are truly inventive and much more 'experimental' than Supertramp's, for example... |
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 04:49
|
pop cannot be prog and rock is hardly prog ------------- 
|
Posted By: unforgivable74
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 05:50
|
I find it amusing how much focus is given to classification, especially on this forum. Some people are adament that they are an authority on what is 'prog' and what isn't. For me, I have a general idea what is meant by the term 'prog' (ie. music of any kind that progresses from any previous commonly used conventions in structure and / or sound). But this is just a guide. I'm not gonna let anyone tell me what is and isn't prog - that's for me to decide and anyone who claims that there are hard and fast rules are simply asserting there own opinions. In the end, it's the music the matters and if someone claims something to be prog that I personally wouldn't regard as prog, I'd try and listen to it from a prog perspective - I may hear something I hadn't before. I'd sooner do this than turn around and say, 'That isn't prog!". I say this within reason. Obviously, no amount of mind-altering substances could ever convince me that 'When I'm Cleaning Windows' by George Formby could be regarded as 'prog'. ------------- Laughs as I clean my teeth, laughs as I rub at my eyes. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 06:00
Sorry, Philippe, but this doesn't make sense. Some pop hits (e.g. I'm Mandy, fly me - as I mentioned earlier) are prog. Many prog bands have recorded pop tunes. ('Sweet dreams console the future', anyone?) Even rock (e.g. Led Zep) can be prog ('The song remains the same'). There are simply no clear distinctions. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 06:42
| What about "Northern Lights" by Renaissance? That was a hit and is a catchy little number, yet the instrumentation in it (e.g. the bass lines and the orchestral bits) could only have come from a prog band. |
Posted By: Hermanes
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 07:55
| Well, after listening to Octavarium (DT), I'd rather say that some numbers could gain high positions on a pop chart. The accessibility of Octavarium is high. Maybe not a true DT album or true Prog (whatever it means !). But definitely my favorite. |
Posted By: mccrank_yeahrig
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 10:10
| For me the perfect examples for pop-prog are Peter Gabriel and Spock's Beard (They have been said before) |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 10:13
|
so many replies, good points everywhere
when I say 'pop' I don't mean just popular music...
Bohemian Rhapsody (example again) could be easy-listening at some parts but is NOT INTENDED to be pop, that's what I am talking about
the fact that Iron Maiden arein UK#1 every time does not make them pop (2nd example)
P.S.: I don't see A.C.T. as prog-pop Jody (clearly art rock IMO)
|
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 10:42
|
I don't like categorising things too much - gets a bit restrictive - but I would like to suggest The Flaming Lips (from "Soft Bullet In" onwards) have managed to produce music that has both "pop" and "prog" attributes. On one level you can listen to them as simple, catchy melodies, but the more you listen, the more depth there is in the music and the arrangements. I think they're great! |
Posted By: Rosescar
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 10:46
|
As far as I'm aware, King Crimson was "pop" in 1969 because they were
massively popular. Actually, most of prog was pop back then. Though I suppose that now pop has indeed become a genre of music to appeal and to make a profit out, and that "mainstream" could be considered the music that is ... popular. ------------- http://www.soundclick.com/rosescar/ - My music! "THE AUDIENCE WERE generally drugged. (In Holland, always)." - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: philhepple
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 11:51
PLEASE do not make asinine comments about something that you are CLUELESS about! |
Posted By: Rosescar
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 13:39
Yes, I am completely clueless. Thank god I got the bloody facts from Epitaph Volume 1 & 2 's liner notes. ------------- http://www.soundclick.com/rosescar/ - My music! "THE AUDIENCE WERE generally drugged. (In Holland, always)." - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: Soupykan
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 13:48
|
Dark Side of the Moon is arguably the most popular album of all time. Just because today's pop music is for the most part not remotely proggish, does not mean that prog music cannot be pop. ------------- She ruled the toads of the short forest And every Newt in Idaho.... |
Posted By: Inferno
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 13:53
|
Prog was pop in the 70's Progressive band were pop music. They were what mainstream people listened too. Maybe not the too obscur group that everyones seems to point out, but prog was pop. Today it's mainly Emo (whatever that means...pop-punk and Melodic Hardcore is the good term to say what people calls EMo today since nobody knows what Moss Icon and Rites of spring are...and they were what Emo is...in 1994!) R&B and the Industry (people like Paris Hilton doing some sh*tty album) That's the pop of today, with a couple of exception of Rock, of Alternative and even a little bit of metal. There was pop in Prog and still. The Harmonic structure of today's prog (And I'm not mentionning all those experimental, psychedalic and Jazz fusion band) are still mainly pop. Like I said, Prog is ambitious pop with a tad of this and that. |
Posted By: Benjamin_Breeg
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 14:04
|
I think so. Some bands like Radiohead, Muse and A.C.T. can do progressive music with a pop approach or pop music with progressive approach
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Dream_Thief_/?chartstyle=Geldropdown2"> 
|
Posted By: coffeeintheface
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 14:48
you lose ------------- OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project) nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas) |
Posted By: coffeeintheface
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 14:49
Is there ANY need to cut someone down like this? He has a very strong point. ------------- OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project) nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas) |
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 14:54
| I'm surprised that Supertramp haven't been brought up here. |
Posted By: Rosescar
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 15:24
I was thinking the same thing, though some albums/songs aren't that proggy. The most popular songs usually are verse-chorus-verse-flute solo-chorus =( ------------- http://www.soundclick.com/rosescar/ - My music! "THE AUDIENCE WERE generally drugged. (In Holland, always)." - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 18:39
Nice call, here !
ACT are one of my favourite current prog bands. On stage they are very good. And they are a successful blend of ABBA, Dream Theater, Saga and Queen.
One name comes to my mind when it comes to pop-prog : Kevin GILBERT, cf his early career with 'NRG' and his solo albums. He defined himself 'the shaming of the true' as pop-prog album.
Most of the art-rock bands could be regarded as prog-pop :
Supertramp
Roxy Music
10 CC
Manfred Mann's earthband
Kate Bush
------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: Harkmark
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 18:46
|
pop cannot be prog, prog can be pop... |
Posted By: NecroManiac
Date Posted: September 08 2006 at 20:58
|
Listen to Doves. Yes, "pop" can be prog. (I hate the term "Dream Pop", it's prog goddamn' it!"
-------------  What's yer faovrite album? =^_^= |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 02:30
|
The reality is that a band can play Prog, POP or borderline music.
BUT:
1.- If a Prog song becomes POP, it ceases to be Prog and becomes Pop.
2.- If a Pop song becomes Prog, it ceases to be Pop and becomes Prog.
3.- If a song is in the limit it's Prog related or borderline but no way a song can be POP and Prog at the same time.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 02:55
I always thought of Shaming of the True as "Art Pop".  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 03:12
|
[QUOTE=Ivan_Melgar_M]The reality is that a band can play Prog, POP or borderline music.
BUT:
1.- If a Prog song becomes POP, it ceases to be Prog and becomes Pop.
2.- If a Pop song becomes Prog, it ceases to be Pop and becomes Prog.
3.- If a song is in the limit it's Prog related or borderline but no way a song can be POP and Prog at the same time.
Iván
QUOTE]
Again if we are talking what was "pop" when prog was popular (the ever popular AOR tag) then people are wrong when they call something like that pop today. No one ever address this. If you think it through is AOR really pop anymore? What does it benefit a band to sound like that today? This is the label I hear put on Spock's Beard, Kansas, The Flower Kings etc. I actually don't get it.
If Neal Morse wrote only AOR music and secular lyrics do you think he is really going to get "popular"?
------------- "What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 03:22
I get your point Garion but for me POP involves much more than popular.
Pop is mainly
Just the opposite of what Prog means. Dark Side of the Moon was popular, but it was a challenging and deep album. Even the most challenging mainstream artists or bands are usually catalogued as "ALTERNATIVE"
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Gaston
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 03:23
|
no such thing as prog, it's just a silly name we give to a broad spectrum of music we'd like to think of as our own. To be truly prog you must have end point, like start as point A and progess knowingly to point B. If not you're just experimental. Bleh. Experimental. lol, y'all know i'm joking, you can classify a range of music into prog and damned right we do. you know, i'm involved in making a masterpiece prog album right now, you know how many times i post here a year? i don't care if anyone even reads this post let alone listens to our music. i'm doing this for you, not for us. as soon as you understand that, you'll understand why there is no prog. don't worry about my music either, we'll all be a part of it soon enough. i want everyone to enjoy us, not nit pick us. we do what we want in other words. long live, er... prog. lol Gaston -------------   It's the same guy. Great minds think alike. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 07:13
| Pop can definitely be Prog, just as Rock can be Prog. There are plenty of Pop bands around today whose music show a lot of Prog influence, Mew and Muse are two good examples, and there are many more. Be open-minded people! |
Posted By: Fusionman
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 08:18
|
Your phrasing is wrong. Pop is a description of a genre, not a genre its self. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 10:53
Not sure Fusionman:
Well, it sounds as a musicall genre to me.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 12:56
HAHAHAHA. GREAT picture in your signature! I also wanted to add this, that I posted in another thread, but I think the idea is still the same. I think we try to call progressive rock a genre, but it's not really. I mean how can "progressive" be a genre. A genre implies something static. It implies sameness. If you really want define a band by it's sameness, then it's not progressive by definition of the word right? Naturally there is some amount of sameness between bands, and that's why we can categorize them at all. I'm speaking very abstractly, but for example you have bands that obviously play something that sounds like metal. If a band that plays metal-like music does something completely new and original with the sound of metal, then it is "making progress" on the sound of metal. In my eyes, the band is worthy of being called a progressive metal band. But if two bands are doing something different in the same way, then one of them can't be progressive. Does this "make a genre"? Well, not really, but it's a good way of characterizing music that people like you and I will enjoy. So in my opinion, a band in ANY subgenre of metal can be progressive. In fact, any band in any genre can be progressive if they are striving for originality. Do you agree? -------------  
|
Posted By: coffeeintheface
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 16:44
I think that's the best point made so far. And thanks for the comment about my signature, haha. I made that in 10 minutes due to boredom. I made a facebook group about it as well, haha. ------------- OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project) nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas) |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 18:26
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 19:09
SolariS wrote:
-------------
|
Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: December 08 2006 at 22:05
| SIMPLE MINDS,STILTSKIN |
Posted By: Everlasting
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 06:50
|
Ivan is right from beginning to end
------------- Ad Astra |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 07:24
| Thread resurrection sucks. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 09:16
well ivan, defining "pop" as a musical genre might be correct, but only inside a discussion concerned on music. still, if you think of the 50s-70s culture as a whole, you'll need to get back to the original sense of "pop", which is much wider and concerns many more aspects of modern culture. in fact, "pop" is a sociological notion (regarding the relation between the artistic object and production/consuming/promoting aspects), while "prog" is an aesthetic notion (a musical style). so, it is correct to involve them both because they don't collide. of course that doesn't mean that the latter definition of "pop" as a musical style is incorrect, but it still is only subsidiary; and myself for example i have to keep this in mind as i deal a lot with the visual arts - remember "popart"? now that was so "prog"!...  the "pop" word was put into it's name as for this artistic movement the sources of inspiration, producing procedures and target audience were new ones, and not because there was an aesthetic definition of "pop" painting vs. "prog" painting coming back to the initial question, i want to mention the french band AIR, one of my favourite bands and definitely one of the best mainstream acts in the last decade! i call their music "progressive electro-pop". what do you think?------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 12:19
-------------
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 13:57
that is exactly what i meant. by comparing "pop-art" to "pop music" i wanted to get your attention towards the original, wider sense of "pop"; which still IS a sociological notion and, as you also said, shouldn't be applied in other disciplines - except for the case you're having a sociological discussion (inspiration/producing/promotion/consuming) (and not when you're having an aesthetic discussion - style, sound). of course i can't make you think my way and your definition of what you call "pop-music" is correct and i accept it; but you use these notions in a very rigid, almost absurd, manner. for example: "It is not Prog if it's mainstream". think of Pink Floyd: are they prog or are they mainstream? i think they are both. you can't go more mainstream than that with good music. also i didn't say AIR is a part of the progressive rock genre, i have a good understanding of these notions. what i said is that they make a music i'd define as "progressive electro-pop". it should be obvious that by using the notion of "progressive" in a place where it shouldn't normally be as a category, i was trying to forge a (new) definition and not to force an inclusion. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:16
|
Andu wrote:
But remember, the terms also evolve, POP is now a musical genre with it's own characteristics that you can find in any musical site and already mentioned. The POP culture is something different to POP music TODAY. of course i can't make you think my way and your definition of what you call "pop-music" is correct and i accept it; but you use these notions in a very rigid, almost absurd, manner. for example: "It is not Prog if it's mainstream". think of Pink Floyd: are they prog or are they mainstream? i think they are both. you can't go more mainstream than that with good music. Pink Floyd is a Prog band who recorded a Prog album (DSOTM) but had the luck to be popular, but mainstream is a different thing:
DSOTM didn't followed the normal music played oin the radios, Prog was more popular in the 70's but never was the prevaling music played in the radios, this was the mainstream of 1973 when Pink Floyd released DSOTM:
1. Tie A Yellow Ribbon 'Round The Ole Oak Tree, Tony Orlando and Dawn This was the mainstream of 1973, Pink Floyd (Who had nothing in common with this top 40 songs and artists) had a popular album and that's all, but despite this fact they were different to the main music current of music, so they were not a mainstream band, just a Prog band with luck. The only Prog song remotely popular in 1973 was “Money” that reached N° 92. BTW: Even a normally Prog oriented band may release a POP album, because Prog is the music, not the band. People today say Prog was popular in the 70's and I always say that this is not true, they were more popular than ever but always POP music reached the charts. |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:23
|
Ivan, the man in your avatar played occasionnally pop on most of his solo albums... ------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:26
Yes, that's why he is in Prog Related, because some of his releases were close to Prog and some were not even Prog Related.
Please, an artist is not Prog "per se", an artist creates Prog music or not Prog Music, ELP, Genesis, Yes, Kansas, Tull, etc recorded a lot of non Prog albums.
But this doesn't deny the fact that they also created a lot of 100% Prog Rock albums and tracks.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Poxx
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:49
| Check out the 2 first albums of Roxy Music, they are quite solid, and not too poppy. Really nice prog passages throughout. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 17:02
|
I
know you’re not trying to include them, but Air is a band that has a
progressive (Adjective) approach to music but not a Progressive Rock
(PROG) band. it seems like you're trying to correct something i'm saying... but i say the exact same thing as you do.  POP is what you say it is when you refer to it as "POP" (and not as what it literally means, "popular music"); i only wanted to keep the wider reference because i'm not happy with the way you use it. also mainstream can have other meanings, not necessarily one to support your theory (actually quite mine too as i had almost the same position on another thread, i even posted a top hit list from the 70s etc. )Look:
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 17:08
The Pointless War of Opinion rages on... 
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 17:10
thread resurrection kicks ass 
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 18:39
I hate opinions. 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 09 2006 at 19:01
DSOTM is a "Rara Avis" they were popular because they were lucky, that's all, they have nothing in common with the top 1973 albums either, not even the other supposedly prog band as The Moody Blues released a Prog album that year because Seventh Sojourn was simply Rock, not Prog:
As you see, the top 1973 albums are mostly by Pop artists like Diana Ross, Elton John, Carly Simon, Al Green, Seals & Crofts, Stevie Wonder, a couple of Rock bands like Alice Cooper and Moody Blues, then Pink Floyd and the rest POP.
That was the mainstream of 1973 in albums with Pink Floyd as an exception.
Iván -------------
|
Top Albums of 1973:Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 10:24
|
"pop" and "prog" are not opposite, because there is no such thing as "opposite to prog" because prog can incorporate everything. ------------- |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 10:41
I don't remember posting that... ------------- sig |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 11:09
^ the dreaded quoting bug strikes again! 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 11:17
Not sure if the quote is the problem - the post to the right of my name and Jan Transit's picture on the first page of this thread does not evoke any associations or memories to me. ------------- sig |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 11:21
|
^ then it's just a form of "reverse deja-vu" ... happens from time to time. You can't remember all your 3569 posts ...
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 11:23
|
I've seen worse, people tend to forget even more important statements they once had made.
------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 11:23
Make it seventy.
 I guess you are right, if one remembers such a high number of all his posts, he hasn't got enough other things to remember (which means I shouldn't be alerted). ------------- sig |
Posted By: Sublimación
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 22:42
|
i think Kansas is kind of Prog pop, and some thing`s of yes to
------------- 
|
Posted By: thai_prog_fan
Date Posted: December 12 2006 at 14:05
|
I regard the following "pop" albums contain some "prog" elements and prog music fans should not miss them: - Klaatu / Klaatu
- Klaatu / Hope
- Caterina Caselli / Primavera
Have you listened to these albums yet? ------------- Thai Prog Fan |
Posted By: Marcos
Date Posted: March 05 2007 at 19:49
|
Yes of 80's is prog-pop. Trevor Rabin is pop... =·/ ------------- www.postmortemweb.com.ar |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 03:16
|
Pop isn't a genre. It's not now, and it never has been.
There are very few identifying elements which are peculiar ONLY to pop music.
Pop is, as has been pointed out many times, short for popular.
It's an umbrella term, but I think Ivan's on the right track when he says that it's largely written for commercial gain. That's not always the case, of course - when defining music, nothing's black and white.
As a round-up of basic traits, pop music can be identified by simple repetition - although not to the point of minimalism:
Melodies tend to be built of a few, short, memorable phrases.
Harmonies tend to be basic i-iv-v, although some can be surprisingly complex.
Rhythm tends to be simple time, although it's popular to "mash it up" and make the rhythmic patterns appear to be complex.
Form is almost invariably intro, verse, chorus, v,c, bridge, v, c, c.
Timbre, however, is highly variable - there are no typical "pop" sounds - anything goes, but it's the manner in which instrumentation is used - it must be either fashionably palatable or novel.
Lyrics are generally about boy/girl relationships, but it's popular to delve into personal angst, "culture" or other issues that are generically personal, and pop songs are usually contructed in simple rhyming couplets.
It's the modern-day equivalent of folk music - while many people think of folk music as a style involving guitars, violins, beards and cardigans, the word "folk" is the clue: It's music of the people. Traditional folk, of course, is often more complex than simple 4/4 and singalong melodies.
Pop music is the middle ground, if you like, as it rarely goes to extremes (Bohemian Rhapsody a notable exception, but "novelty" plays a large part in pop) - or if it does, it generally goes unnoticed;
For example, ABBA's music is often complex in arrangement, progression and even instrumentation - but the first thing you notice about it is the easy-on-the-ear, catchy tunes and foot-tapping beats, and many people would balk at the idea of ABBA being somehow complex.
"Dancing Queen", for example, is radical in structure, because it breaks away from verse-chorus structures - it begins with the chorus.
As another example, ABBA the album features a mini-suite that was going to be part of a full-length music drama. Even the song that ends the suite, "Thank You For The Music", is full of complexities - the modulations in the harmonic progressions are masterful, and a long way from i-iv-v.
So if ABBA could make forays into Progressive music, then it's obvious that other pop bands could, if they took a mind to.
On the other side of the coin, there are certain "prog" bands that simply learn techniques and cobble together all sorts of nonsense that sounds a bit complicated, while underneath, it's all as simple as (most) pop music.
I think a better question would be "Can Prog be Pop?", but I think that Pop can't easily be Prog, as Prog fans would have something to say about that...
. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 11:20
Certif1ed knows what he's talking about!  Great post!
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 11:54
Definitely a pop song/music - meaning 'popular song/music'. Sold as a single record for the pop market and appeared in the pop charts, then regular voted into the all time top ten of pop recordings ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 12:24
|
I see pop as a genre. Shorter, concise songs, emphasis on chorus, melody, simpler compositions, etc. Avant-garde and industrial pop are a few favorites of mine with bands like Tactile Gemma and Medusa's Spell.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 13:42
on topic - few days ago I saw two videos. The first one was DJ/dance remix with all that chicks etc(usual stuff for such videos),but the main theme was SO MUCH familiar...it was a "Owner of a Loneley Heart" remix  Another one was Wycliff Jean's (well-known hip-hop-related artist) song which actually called "WISH YOU WERE HERE" and was based on PINK FLOYD's theme with the same name! Prog goes Pop?
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 18:01
| No, but as the Beatles prove, it can be progressive. |
Posted By: ken4musiq
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 23:48
The best example I can think of is Roundabout, since Yes is a prog band and Queen is debated. Roundabout is popular but not pop; but dang it is so close. But it has that whole c section tacked on , and a coda.(BR also has a coda) But they cut most of that in the single version. Does that then make it "pop." There is also a tradition in a popular song that it can be recreated by other performers; there were at least four versions version of Mack the Knife that become widely popular in the 1950's. That happened with the Beatles, Stones and Springsteen. In classic rock not only do we not have that but even those who do recreate the music often try to imitate the original, as though it is some sort of a Greek statue, frozen on the vinyl. I think that is slowly changing. that is an interesting change in classic rock from popular music before 1970. and even when a song reentes the top twenty, it is the same version. Since that question has already be exhausted, of whether pop is a gnere, I'll just add that the reason why we consider pop a genre is because there is something particular to a pop song that distinguishes it as a pop song whether it is the genre of Motown, Country, New Wave, boy band, hip hop etc. If we are identifying it as a genre because of this, then prog cannot be pop by nature of its definition. I think the problem in American is that we no longer have a mainstram popular culture but a pop culture. In that sense, things can no longer be deemed popular unless they are pop: hooky, superficial, flighty, commerical. Popular culture is now underground. As pop was really used first by critics to deride rock and roll; now I think it has come to have the designation in music as classical v. popular had; good v not as good (bad?) music. Now that popular culture is being given more intellectual credence we have pop v. popular, which I use because I think people have an awareness of that distinction now historically. In America, we also get our sense of pop from Warhol. Whereas Brecht had a better understanding of the historical non-aesthetic notions of popular culture and what that means to music. Maybe in the future "pop' will grow to be given more credence as it changes and maybe pop and popular will be interchangable. In addition, I truly believe that in the future the idea of the "modern" will mean the musical era of the 20th century and we no longer have the designation as meaning contemporary. |
Posted By: Rust
Date Posted: March 06 2007 at 23:51
|
You should ask Yes. ------------- We got to pump the stuff to make us tough from the heart Its astart What we need is awareness we cant get careless Mental self defensive fitness Make everybody see in order to fight the powers that be |
Posted By: ken4musiq
Date Posted: March 07 2007 at 12:40
you can ask 'em the next time you 'lunch.'
Utimately, the legacy of the prog lies on its meaning in a popular context, that is whether it becomes something that people (the people) recreate through reinterpret and performance. This already happened with Genesis since the neo-prog movement was spawned by Genesis (and to some degree Yes.) enthusiasts, according to Holm. I think that progressive rock was largely slienced in the states by the late seventies. One could ask what would have happened if the music of Yes and ELP, the two major prog bands in America, had created an musical culture. What would that music would have been like. I ran at least three ads between 1979-1981 and got very little response to create a prog band, the exception being a Tull tribute band that never took flight. As we see this finally happening, I would say that prog is successful. I just wish that performers could get out of seeing this music soley through its recorded medium and do something original with it; the vinly is only the sheet music afterall. btw: to identify the problem. Take a word like "classical" as it pertains to music. It is used for everything that comes out of the Western tradition. It was first used in the 1850's to mean the "klassiche Stil," the classical style, of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. It had the connotation of classic just like in "classic" car. But it excluded French classics, which happend much ealier because these guys who used the term were Germans. This is where we get the dominant understanding of the term. Later, it became part of the Classical v. Romantic debate, which great musicologists like F. Blume found troubling. Then we had classical v. popular debate and popular was seen as something derogatory as compared to classical. Now we have classic American popular song. Many jazz musicoligists refer to jazz as American classical music. So these terms are so malleable, so filled with politics and so problematic when trying to describe how the music really is. I could do the same for the term romantic, which was first used in the 1780's to describe what we now call the music of the classical period. So classical is a category, it is a period, it is a style and it is a term that designates anything that is old but still way cool. |
Posted By: Daydreamyng
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 14:58
|
IMHO I think that the "pop" music scene is controlled more by corporations than the actual musicians. Take for example when a pop artist goes into a studio. Most of the songs are pre-written for them. All the artist has to do is show up. In that sense then no I don't ever think pop will be prog. |
Posted By: Yontar
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 16:07
|
i would say pop is mainly just writing accesible music with a hook and basic musicianship. So yea certain prog and pop bands i can consider prog pop |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 17:35
Woohoo, nothing like a chance to plug Klaatu !!! Spot on target, bullseye when it comes to their debut. My answer to the question - can XTC bring a listener prog ecstasy ? Wait, that's a question, too ! Er, yes, I guess. Is the answer, I mean. To the question. That was asked. At the very beginning of this thread ...  |
Posted By: MusicForSpeedin
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 22:46
| The Flaming Lips |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 22 2007 at 08:10
Shame on you, Dick!!!
That's not the story at all - the idea of releasing something as elaborate as Bohemian Rhapsody as a single was regarded as completely ludicrous then - just as it would be now if another "popular" band tried the same thing (remember, "popular" is relative - Metallica were exceptionally popular at one point, but the music couldn't really be considered as "pop").
General rule of thumb: Singles are 3-4 minutes and simple, not 7 minutes and mind-bogglingly complex. The record company wasn't too happy to release it, and radio stations refused to play it at first.
The reason it became popular is that Kenny Everett played it 14 times non-stop (or something like that), and almost singlehandedly brainwashed the public into accepting it as a great novelty record.
It's popular, but not typical of pop by the longest chalk you can imagine!
BH is one of the greatest anomalies the pop charts have ever had - and it's done it 3 times to boot!
Following your logic, Dick (which isn't without good foundation, I have to say), since King Crimson Genesis and Yes were very popular in their heydays, that makes them all popular - and they all wrote songs and released singles.
"ITCOTCK" was released as a single, as was "The Knife" and "Roundabout", just as three examples.
Welcome to Pop Archives...
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: greenback
Date Posted: March 23 2007 at 13:02
|
Al Stewart - Year of the cat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------- [HEADPINS - LINE OF FIRE: THE RECORD HAVING THE MOST POWERFUL GUITAR SOUND IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MUSIC!> |
Posted By: endlessepic
Date Posted: March 27 2007 at 01:39
Quite true, two antonyms classified as a genre...doesn't really work. |