Defining "Prog" ... a practical solution
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49851
Printed Date: April 26 2024 at 11:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Defining "Prog" ... a practical solution
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: Defining "Prog" ... a practical solution
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 06:27
|
I've been meaning to write a blog about this ... but I don't have the time to go into great detail, so I'll just give you the "skinny": As I see it, there are two major criteria which can be examined to determine whether a piece of music can be called prog: 1. is it truly progressive? 2. does it *sound* like some previously recorded music which has already been identified as being "Prog"? EDIT: slightly modified the second criterium: added the detail "previously recorded". Number one has been defined by Certif1ed, and I largely agree with his definition (and also that statement by Emerson). However, most of what we call prog does not satisfy this definition - and I'm not necessarily talking about new vs. old/classic here. I think we have to acknowledge that there is a certain bandwidth of progressiveness ... some prog artists are less (truly) progressive than others, but we still call them Prog. Number two is a much more fuzzy criterium ... nevertheless I think it's necessary. Not only are many bands we call Prog not as innovative or musically challenging as others, there are also some which copy or at least take significant parts of the style of other bands which we know to be Prog. EDIT: Of course it goes without saying that the second criterium is also not a black/white decision ... By combining these two criteria we essentially get four situations: A) Something is truly progressive and also sounds like typical "Prog" music B) Something is truly progressive, but doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music C) Something is not truly progressive, but sounds like typical "Prog" music D) Something is not truly progressive and doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music Edit: By "typical prog" I mean music which was played by the classic bands of the genre, and which - through articles, interviews and reviews - defined the style. For Prog Rock this would mean Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, for Prog Metal it would mean Dream Theater and Fates Warning. Obviously Prog is inherently eclectic, and we can always argue about which bands/styles to use as a reference ... for the sake of this definition I think the reference should only be a very small selection of the most important bands/styles, in order to keep things simple ... the purest examples of prog, if you will. Now, the interesting question is: which of these situations are "Prog" to you? Obviously D is clearly not Prog. The absolute purists might go for A only. The musicians among us who don't like derivative music but are inclusive in terms of style might go for A and B. Those who simply compare styles and don't care much for musical intricacies might go for A and C. If we take into considerations that a general definition of "Prog" should try to incorporate most major views, I can only deduce that both A, B and C qualify. This means that if one of my two criteria is met, a piece of music can be called "Prog". So ... what do you think?  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 09:04
|
very interesting and well researched idea BUT A - If something 'sounded' like typical prog music, could it be deemed truly 'progressive' ? (Do you mean it may be similar to some earlier prog ? or do you mean it shares broadly agreed prog characteristics but ventures out into new territory ?) i.e otherwise wouldn't it be tantamount to 'retro' bands in C ? Despite my infernal nitpicking, I think you may be on to a really good idea here ------------- 
|
Posted By: Single Coil
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 09:25
|
I like your way of thinking. I think it might help me if I had some examples.
Let me try.....
A) Something is truly progressive and also sounds like typical "Prog" music Yes, Genesis
B) Something is truly progressive, but doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music Devin Townsend, Magma, Discipline by King Crimson
C) Something is not truly progressive, but sounds like typical "Prog" music Tiles, Enchant, Jadis, Magenta
D) Something is not truly progressive and doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music Iron Maiden, David Bowie I am intentionally leaving Dream Theater and Opeth off the list. Also, I am not sure where to put Rush. ------------- If it's worth playing, it's worth playing loud! |
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 09:47
|
The main problem I see in this list is that it now requires a definition of "Typical 'Prog' Music"
I tend to like things in the B category, though we have things from all 4 here.
I don't really know what to make of it all. I know you're a fan of quantifying things as much as possible, Mike, and I don't want to belittle your efforts. However, I think "progressive" is a feeling and/or attitude and can only really be represented by a nebulous cloud, not a solid Venn diagram. ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 09:54
Yes - C in fact stands for retro/regressive bands ... or the typical expression "... clone". My point is that regardless of whether these bands are truly progressive or not, their music should still be called "Prog". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
ExittheLemming wrote:Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 10:00
I basically agree with these examples. I think that it's best to not make "binary" decisions about these criteria ... some albums are very difficult to pinpoint in terms of those two criteria. For example, Iron Maiden might be slightly progressive and also slightly related in style to typical Prog (e.g. the elaborate bass lines). (See also next answer to GoldenSpiral's post) ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 10:08
I actually don't want to quantify everything ... of course I'll implement the two criteria on my website (in fact I already did  ), but they should be relatively fuzzy. These are the steps I use:0%: Not 20%: Slightly 40%: Moderately 60%: Quite 80%: Very 100%: Extremely I don't really think that's too specific. It also relates well to normal human language ... for example, someone could say "Spock's Beard are only moderately progressive, but their music sounds a lot like classic prog". You could argue about what "a lot" means, but I'd translate this into 40% progressive, 60% prog by style. Of course people tend to think about quantizing as soon as percentages are used ... I'll probably have to find a way to avoid showing them directly. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Single Coil
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 10:26
You're right, I guess you can't just make "binary" decisions.
I was thinking that maybe I should have listed Sub-Genres, instead of Band or Albums....but that still would have been impossible. ------------- If it's worth playing, it's worth playing loud! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 10:44
|
^ interesting idea - to list sub genres - but actually I would even try to be more precise and move to the album level. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 11:12
|
In general I agree with what you've said Mike and look at things in a
similar way, but I think Whistler said it best in his blog; "Prog isn’t a sound; it’s a way of doing things. Or rather, it’s an ideal.". For me, those two sentencies sum up progressive music and can be applied to just about everything we consider progressive here in the archives. This is where I differ with Certif1ed, he's looking for a specific musical charecteristic that is shared by all prog bands, at least the early ones that created prog, and what he's found is something that only people with a good ear and a strong grounding in music theory can hear (useless to most of us, then).
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 11:35
|
But what's the point Mike?
People will still be forgetting of really Prog bands with the excuse...We don''t know them or They are noit availlable or We don't like cirtual music or I can't fin them in my local store-
And as always will keep making case after case for the ibnclusion of Boston, Toto, etc, because they are availlable everywhere or simply because they enjoy their music.
I read in this forum:
1.- Genres as Rio or Avant are too noisy for most
2.- Symphonic and Neo are Retro Prog
3.- Space as Pinjk Floyd "Are not really Prog" according to many
4.- Fusion is Jazz not Prog
5.- Prog Metal is not Prog.
6.- BNew Prog is derivative
7.- Old Prog is outdated
9.- 80's Prog is weak
But Bowie, Toto and Boston are OK.
I simply can't understand.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:02
Nice post!  This statement you quoted ("Prog isn't a sound - it's a way of doing things") is true, but what about bands like Wobbler ... or The Flower Kings? Surely the music is prog. Now you may say "Wait a minute ... it only sounds like prog!". But what difference does it make to new listeners? If you play them the Wobbler album and Camel - Moonmadness and ask them which is "more proggy", I'm not sure what they would say. My point is that while it is very interesting to point out which recordings are "truly progressive" and which are merely copies/adaptations of those original pieces of music, both can be called "prog" ... the label includes both extremes. This is the very reason why prog is so hard to define, and why any "wholistic" attempt to define it is bound to fail. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:10
Its why I like that statement, it can be applied in two ways, to mean that the band in question is trying to emulate the classics by doing things in a similar way, or its tacking the same mentality/approach as the classic bands but creating very different music. Completely agree with that second paragraphe. As for comparing Hinterland and Moonmadness, I'd say Wobbler, but thats just me. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:15
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:17
Which means that I choose a good example for my point ... I'm also inclined to choose Wobbler, but I'm sure that many people would disagree. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:38
|
I am in agreement with your 4 criteria Mike. But as you said, it is not necessarily a black/white decision. Not to take the thread off-topic, since the Boston/Toto, etc... debates have raged on in other threads, but what I have said when suggesting inclusion of a band such as Boston or Toto could in a way fall within your definitions; hence the not black/white decision. It was either said above or in a different thread, but AOR could be said to have been derived from classic symphonic prog rock. To my ear, a band like Boston or Toto sounds far more like Yes, Rush, Kansas or Genesis, then a band like Sleepytime Gorilla Museum or Meshuggah. So yes, to my ear Boston or Toto sound more like a progressive rock band then SGM or Meshuggah. For me, the difficult part to grasp is that these bands that sound almost absolutely nothing like typical prog bands, are considered to be prog bands and of course the reason for that is your first criteria, that they are "progressing" music, whatever that means. I suppose that on a different scale there is a similarity to the history of mankind. Comparing ape to man doesn't necessarily make sense until the missing links are found to make the connection. The same would go to comparing SGM or Meshuggah to King Crimson or Genesis. The missing links would have to be filled in to make the connection.In summary, I agree with your definitions and I agree that it is not all black and white. And since this is a good thread, I hope not to distract from it by continuing a Boston/Toto debate since those have already been done. Like Ivan, I'd much prefer to explore and discuss bands that need the discussing and exploring. Or at least read about others discussing them, since most likely I know little or nothing about them. ------------- 
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 13:21
|
I think it's a nice way of classifying.
Personally I will include A B & C as prog.
However I think a true purist will choose only B . A real progressive artist is someone who did something totally new = something never been heared before. I'll use the example of Magma given earlier - this is a tottaly new thing and I think they are one of the most progressive bands ever.
To Ivan : Personally I find both Boston and Toto quite mediocre and boring. On the other hand, Bowie is a different case IMO. He was there at the time prog just started and have done things quite innovative. As an example I advise to hear "Cygent comitee" from Space odity. This 10 minutes track is a real epic, great lyrics, very emotional and quite melodic. I think you would like this one and I feel it is quite progy. ------------- omri |
Posted By: Single Coil
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 13:28
That's pretty profound ! Since listening to AOR stations is how I discovered Rush, Yes and Kansas. At that early stage of my prog listening, I had no idea just how "different" those bands were from the bulk of the radio station's playlist.
I agree that plenty of "prog" albums had content that easily fit into an AOR playlist. And you're right, maybe that's just because AOR itself featured bands that "fit the mold".
Certainly, many people during AOR's heyday did not see Supertramp and Tull as "prog" bands. But that may be because they didn't really seem all that different from Boston, Toto, Styx and Traffic.
------------- If it's worth playing, it's worth playing loud! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 13:35
Well, the classic bands/albums are a unique case - They also are A, since they define the reference for comparison. In essence, they're pretty similar in style to themselves ... About Magma: I think that technically they are not part of the prog "nucleus". Undoubtedly many people who favor the Avant-Garde bands will disagree ... but in all fairness, I doubt that as far as popularity, number of fans etc. were concerned bands like Yes and Genesis were much more responsible for the formation of "Prog" as a genre/style than other bands like VdGG, Gentle Giant or Magma. I'm a big fan of those bands, but I think they are a prime example for bands which aren't that closely related to the purest forms of prog in terms of style (60%), but of course are very (truly) progressive (80-100%). As far as innovation is concerned ... Magma are pretty unique, but if you listen to an early album (e.g. 1,001 Degrees Centigrade) and then to for example Frank Zappa - Hot Rats, there are obvious connections/influences. I'm very sure that most of the time we think that something's unique and innovative, it's because we simply don't (yet) know all the influential albums. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 14:32
|
would you guys classify the band below me as prog? i think i would. btw to whoever said Fusion is not prog is only partially right. There is Fusion that isnt prog. But prog in itself is Fusion. There's also a difference between Jazz-Fusion and Jazz-Prog-Fusion. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes with straight jazz. Jazz-fusion is too big a world... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 14:42
|
^ we should be careful to avoid misunderstandings here. I think that for example an album like Mahavishnu Orchestra's Inner Mounting Flame is not prog *by style*. I do think that it's progressive ... thus, by meeting the first criterium, I can call it "prog". I just doubt that the proverbial "man on the street" back in 1973 would have named that album (or anything by Magma or Van der Graaf Generator) when you had asked him to name some important Prog Rock albums. It's much more likely that it would have been something by Yes or Genesis. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 02:07
-------------
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 03:09
|
I like what Mike's done, and I pretty much agree with him. Great work, Mike. I've been struggling for a few months with a visual representation of the definition of prog. I'm aware of the limitations of Venn diagrams - the boundaries tend to be far too rigid, and there are always exceptions - but it's the INTENT I'm interested in. Could people please try to break this diagram? There should be a place for every band/artist. All comments are appreciated (though I'm not sure about those who think this is a waste of time - I'm not sure why you're reading this thread, in that case!). http://www.freeimagehosting.net/">  Edit: Mike, I'm not trying to usurp your thinking. This is your thread. I'm adding to the debate. If you want me to naff off and make my own thread, I will. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 03:43
|
I'm a litle confused as to why Classic Prog Rock is wholly subsumed by Prog Related - I would have thought that Classic Prog would be out on its own, with other "bubbles" intersecting it.
The description is't very accurate either - the "amalgamation of other genres with rock" process started at least 5-6 years earlier in the Progressive Music Scene, which is what Classic Prog arose from.
There's also a confusion between Progressive Music as a generality and the Progressive Music scene (specific to rock music) I noted above. If it's simply music that breaks convention, then you need to go back another few centuries...
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 03:58
Happy to help. Yes, you're right: prog-related should either not include classic prog rock or the definition should be altered to include it (i.e. PROG RELATED: classic prog rock and rock with elements of classic prog). I'll have a think about that ... or I'm open to suggestions ... The description of Classic Prog Rock does summarise what was going on at the time, but doesn't preclude what was happening earlier, which is why I put the c. beside each date. Perhaps the earlier parts of the process could become a proto-prog set. The dates only apply to Classic Prog Rock. There's plenty of room in the set 'Progressive Music' to go back as far as you like - it's the intersection with prog-related and classic prog rock I'm interested in, as well as the more nebulous 'progressive music' that is NOT rock but is still a part of the archives (such as drone music). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 04:35
|
Since this is an entirely different topic, I would recommend that you start a separate thread ... but nicely done diagram!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 04:36
| Will do, Mike - I thought it was related, but I respect your wishes. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 04:43
^ it is related and I don't mind you posting it here, but it looks like it has the potential of spawning several pages of discussion, so it deserves its own thread.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 04:52
| ^ Done - separate thread started. |
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 12:53
|
Somehow we allways find that popularity is a main issue. This is why people in the streets would name Yes or Genesis as defining prog and not VDGG, Magma or Gentle giant as Mike said earlier.
Yet, we can take this argument to an absurd easily. No prog band ever was popular as Michael Jackson in the 80's or Maddona in the 90's. I'm quite sure none of us will suggest to define prog by each of those examples (and please, don't correct me if I'm wrong here !). Therefore I think that popularity is not a factor here at all. Using the example of VDGG I claim that this band (and it is tottaly subjective - I know) is more progy than both Yes or Genesis. I feel that the progressiveness of a band / artist is quite important and for me it is a big part of what defines prog (this is why I allways thought David Bowie belongs here and was quite sattisfied to see nowadays he is finally included).
The claim about influence sounds more logic to me but I heared very few Zappa outputs so I can't argue if Magma was influenced by him (and I don't have 1001 centigrades yet so it is impossible for me to judge). However, for me Magma or Can feel more progy than most of the bands that are concidered as defining prog like Yes, Genesis or ELP (all 3 are excellent bands IMO). ------------- omri |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 14:19
^ Maybe when trying to find benchmarks for the progressive *style* it makes sense to name specific tracks:
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Rubidium
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 00:55
|
I have two problems with this. "B) Something is truly progressive, but doesn't sound like typical "Prog" music" Although I know next to nothing about the genre, I'm sure there are several rap artists who are progressive thinking, and they certainly sound nothing like the "typical prog music", so wouldn't they fall into this category? But on the other hand a band like Magma made music that we would certainly consider to be progressive, and it doesn't sound like "typical prog music", which leads me to the second problem I have: At what point does untypical prog music become typical? Magma's music was certainly atypical when it was first made because there wasn't much like it before (or at least not to my knowledge). But after a couple of albums would it then be typical enough for any Magma "clones" to be considered prog under criterion C? And if so then wouldn't Magma's "typical" music classify them under criterion A, or are we only considering where they would fall at the conception of their "truly progressive" music? If it's the latter, then how could anybody fall under criterion A? How can a band be truly progressive while still sounding typical? I think you might need to define what you mean by "truly progressive" and "typical", but wouldn't that just bring you back to the original question that you were trying to solve? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 03:22
Good point. First of all I think that Certif1ed's definition of Prog and that of Keith Emerson describe very well what I mean by "truly progressive". As far as "typical" is concerned ... it's somewhat fuzzy. Just imagine someone who has the combined knowledge of all us "experts" here ... imagine what he would say if a newbie asked him "what about album xyz - is this typical prog?". I think that for Magma's key albums he'd say that it's not the first thing which would come to mind, but still somewhat - or even "quite" - related to for example King Crimson. Personally, in that case I would say that if the style of prog was a person, Zeuhl would be something like a weird cousin. About your question: I don't think that my approach completely solves the question "What is Prog". But I think that it separates two contradictory aspects of why we call something prog ... a difficult question is divided into two questions which still aren't straight forward to answer, but in the end less difficult and less contradictory. Together with the idea of not simply making these two criteria yes/no anwers, but to allow a certain bandwidth/level, we get a much more transparent way of determining prog status. We could even tweak it some more and for each question list some criteria: 1. Is it truly progressive? Complex structure/form, Innovation, Spontaneity/Experimentation, Development/Exploration ... 2. Is it prog "by style"? Reminds of typical Prog Rock key albums, typical Neo Prog key albums, typical Prog Metal albums etc.. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 03:30
|
I think the problem is that we're trying to come up with a somewhat detailed definition of several somewhat unrelated genres of music. I don't consider "prog" a real genre. I don't see a whole lot of Krautrock influence on Symphonic prog and vice versa. They are two separate genres that have one thing in common: they pushed the boundaries of what rock is (to varying degrees). I believe that to be the definition of "progressive rock" and then we can begin to define what symphonic prog is, what krautrock is, what RIO is, and so on since the bands in those categories have a lot more in common. We can discuss how they pushed the boundaries, how they relate to another, etc. When we choose Genesis, Yes, ELP and King Crimson as what we define the progressive style to be, we're discluding tons of other bands that don't fit into the "English symphonic" style. They are only markers of a specific subset of what progressive rock is. I wouldn't put Can into the same genre as Genesis; they're completely different from each other. Like I said, I don't think prog is a genre of music, just like classic rock (which I guess is a whole other argument). All it is is a term that we apply to certain kinds of music that we think others will enjoy just because they push the boundaries of rock music. |
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 13:39
|
Nice point on the agenda! You've spoken wise (whoever wrote this topic)
There are indeed two kinds of prog:
- Music that has some change in it making it innovating.
- Music that is inspired by innovating bands but doesn't innovate itself
Both can be called progressive. Progressive rock doen not have to be innovative if you put it like that.
I also think to much music is called progressive (grindcore, metal, blablalba). Some bands claiming to be progressive could learn from Elvis. For they aren't progressive at all! I guess every band wants to bring something new, but some bands just can't do that.
Also there is little change in musical equipement these days. In the '60 and '70 a lot of new amplification was made that made new music possible. No-one could have played metal in the '60 because the amplification of the time would not have allowed it. So, no new possiblities that weren't there before.
To be truly progressive these days is a hard thing...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 04 2008 at 05:01
I understand you completely. However, you're missing the point of what I'm trying to do. Remember the basic scenario that I described earlier: Imagine you're an expert of prog music (which most of us are). A total newbie - a person who hasn't heard anything we call prog - and asks you "What is Prog? Please don't give me a long description, just name 2-3 albums.". Would you tell him to listen to Mekanik Destruktiv Kommandoh, Inner Mounting Flame or Still Life (VdGG)? I wouldn't. I would tell him to listen to Foxtrot, Close to the Edge and - well, maybe not necessarily ELP, but maybe ItCotCK or Thick as a Brick. I simply think that these albums are closer to representing the essence of what "Prog" stood for in the 1970s. Of course I would mention to the newbie that Prog actually encompasses a huge variety of styles ... but none of them are (or were) as iconic and revered as those key albums I named. What you need to understand is that by naming a "nucleus" of albums I'm not excluding all the other genres. I'm merely saying that they were offshoots of the main classic prog movement - which is indeed synonymous with "Classic British Symphonic Prog Rock" - or parallel movements (like Krautrock or Canterbury/Prog Fusion) which were also regarded as being "Prog", but were probably seen as second tier developments by most people (I'm saying "probably" because I wasn't there myself, so I can't know for sure). Note also that as I said before, some of these bands may actually be more progressive than the other, more iconic bands. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 04 2008 at 13:27
Perhaps, but Genesis, Yes, King Crimson and Tull are also far more accessible than any Krautrock band; they're like the pop of prog. I think it may just be more of a product of our Englishness (or English-speaking, more specifically). Jethro Tull was popular because it had the benefit of being from England and could be transported to places like the USA where they would gain even more success, while Can did not get that luxury. (Of course, places like Germany could see the bands you listed as the iconic prog bands but since I have never visited Germany or any other European country, I have no idea of how they view the situation.) I do see your general point though and I guess I'm just arguing some nitpicky particulars. Right now, I'm wondering if there is really a point to the term "retro" prog. Even though they are adhering to the guidelines set by Genesis, Yes, etc. they are still a response to the simplicity of pop music. If Genesis and Yes were popular today, then I could see criticisms of retro prog bands being valid, but because they are just continuing the work of those early bands and are still breaking traditional song (not as much as some bands of course, but breaking nonetheless), maybe the retro label is pointless. Side question, is Anglagard considered retro prog? |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: July 04 2008 at 16:22
|
Well, I've said that before and I'll say it again. The problem in defining what is prog or not is that Progressive Rock was a label to a musical movement that took place mainly in the late sixties and in the seventies, the thing we call today Classic Prog. There were other musical movements that had some elements in common with Progressive Rock and later were put in the same umbrella. Then came many other movements influenced by Progressive Rock (and other movements/genres as well) that are somewhat different to prog rock, but were also put under the same umbrella and this keeps on growing so much that nowadays we don't talk about Prog Rock anymore. And a more hazardous move that has being done is to use the elements that are present in the new movements put under Prog umbrella to rewrite the past story and to "discover" old prog bands that were not labeled as so. When a person says he likes prog, the person hardly mean to say that he likes blues, jazz, avant-garde, heavy metal, nu-metal, black/death metal, synth rock, post punk, folk, psychedelic, electronic music, indian music among others. People hardly like every genre (here called subgenre) labeled as prog that's why there will never be "union among the progressive ranks". So, in my opinion, is useless to discuss "pratical solutions" for defining prog because every "solution" will not be pratical and will not help. Take as example the first trial of using the pratical solution given. The first reply was a disagreement that Metallica was not "non-prog". This is a sign that what people in the site call "Prog" will never have a efficient way to define, because it is too much to be defined. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 06:26
Not sure anyone will disagree with you regarding the breadth of what's now called 'prog' and the small likelihood that anyone will like every facet. And yes, we argue about it all the time. I'm not sure, though, why you would conclude that no solutions will help. I would have thought Mike's thread has helped people see some similarities and differences in various aspects of prog, and at the least people will be better informed when they next come to argue! |
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 02:30
| From A to Z baby. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 03:05
Classic Prog had moved away from 1960s psychedelia, which is where the roots of most Krat lie - it evolved further, and structured the improvisations in a way that mot Kraut could not (exceptions including Can and early Kraftwerk).
I don't think so - all have accessible melodies, but the structured improvisations of all 3 can go way beyond "accessible" (how many people actively dislike the sublime, intricate, crystalline atonal instrumental section of "Moonchild" because it's hard to listen to?), while most Krautrock bands produced music that's only "inaccessible" due to large amounts of aimless noodle, along the lines of mid-late 1960s psychedelia - which in itself is hardly progressive.
Amon Duul II were excellent at reining in their jams - but they're one of the more accessible bands of the genre. The more I listen to bands like Faust or Guru Guru, the more I think they were just pulling a fast one - the music isn't complex at all.
Kraftwerk produced some of the most complex Kosmische music I've ever heard - but they seem to be the exception rather than the norm.
The most popular, for good reasons - but not like "pop" at all, really.
A lot of Krautrock was actually referred to as Pop music - I have a compilation I picked up recently of German Pop Music, which includes Can and Krokodil, among others - so in Germany, at least, it's Kraut that's the Pop of Prog
OK, those are two specific examples; Tull were popular because they were extremely good at infusing their music with catchy melodies, infectious rhythms, and jazz-like twisting of instrumental passages from the entire group. Oh, and they had this mad flautist geezer with googly eyes, in Worzel Gummidge attire, who stood on one leg.
Can didn't work so well, not only because of the general lack of melody, but because the albums were structured edits of improvisations that were hard to reproduce live, and because not once did Czukay stand on one leg...
To succeed in a live environment, the show is everything.
By me, definitely - although the term seems an oxymoron, Anglagard do seem to fit it. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 03:11
well then you'd really have something   |
Posted By: mickstafa
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 16:52
|
I largely agree with Mike's breakdown, and that is how I view prog/progressive music. Much like other forms of art, music can be defined as having a combination of two parts. 1. The ethical 2. The aesthetic As you can see, this dichotomy is exactly what Mike is saying: "truly progressive" is the meaning, or, the ethical point behind the music. "Sounding prog" is the aesthetic. I personally make a distinction between "prog" (which is synonymous with the aesthetic) and "progressive" (which is synonymous with the ethical). Both belong here on this website and both have their merits. Every band on here has some balance between these two concepts (or, as Mike put it, not as much of a balance, but an mutually exclusive relationship). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:41
|
^ I agree with your usage of "prog" and "progressive", but of course it's difficult to distinguish them since "prog" is also the contraction of "progressive". I'm preparing two tags on my website: "progressive approach" "prog by style" I will attempt to assign these two tags to all the albums of my collection ... when I'm done I'll try to make the result available as a chart. I'm not sure if that chart will be useful or not, but I'm willing to try this experiment. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|