Yeah ...

 

It is done HERE on this very board!

 

And sometimes I think that too many folks don't even know the meaning of the word "prog" since they are not even listening to enough things that are "prog" ... the objectivity of the word disappears when you stop at top ten bands!

 

But of course ... everyone here will stand up for their heroes! Because their heroes would never be not that perfect!

 

For the record ... Andy Warhol did not create "The Velvet Underground" ... there is no relation whatsoever! But the art scene around the time had a lot of these people near enough each other ... that they knew how to help each other and help their scene "make it" ... personally, I don't think that Lou Reed cared for Andy that much ... as he could be awfully vain and Lou Reed is not that type and neither was ANY of the music that band had.

 

Another one .... "The music is based on the very popular Guitar Pop genre ... " ... not stated 100 % accurately but in a sense it is true and came from the pop music in radio where the likes of Winchester Cathedral and otehr idiotic songs came out as if they were representatives of some kind of psychedelic introspective trip ... it developed from there into a lot more than just a pop song, and credit to that would have to go to NY, London and Paris, three cities that are well known for their experimental arts and music ... and they expanded the realm of the "song" into a lot more ... in London we ended up with the Canterburians and the Harvest families ... in Paris with the rock bands taking Jacques Brel  even further (Ange and several others) and in NY, you can easily bring up a Velvet Underground and some other bands ... and basically all of these ... REJECTED ... not only the "psychedelic" theme, but also the fact that they were not being given any credit for creating literary/artistic works at the time ... of which they were certainly involved and a part of in the first place!

 

Pop music was a fad ... it ended quickly when you went to SF with flowers in your hair and got raped! And we also mean ideas that disrespect one's musical knowledge and intelligence in favor of "drugs" and an imaginary scene and ideal that never was.

 

 

 

 

You gotta love that line

 

Stonebeard ...

 

That is perfect ... I could not have done as well myself ... with only one comment ... how "warhol'ian" of you ... but at least you were more original than the soup cans ...

 

My preference still is ... that we not use the term for a "type or style" of music ... no one, goes around saying that they want to listen to Romantic and Nationalistic music ... when they want to hear Beethoven or Tchaikovsky ... and why the hell would anyone want to be called "progressive" ... specially when one of the very heroes we mention denumks that idea and then some (Robert Fripp) ... and is a well known and studied "actor" with a guitar in his hand ... it's almost like saying that the man is not educated enough and studious enough, that he could never do anything different ... or apply a baroque playing style to his electric guitar with some compression .. to make it sound weirder with Brian Eno in the background!

 

Some people are very good experiment'rs (is that a word?)

 

For me the progression of musical themes in a long, instrumental or instrumental section (such as a well-crafted solo or "jam" in the middle of a song) is the essence of progressive rock.  So when Yes created the song "Starship Trooper" with its three sections which roll together and end with a great progressive jam, that is archetypal of what I think of as progressive rock.  Perhaps In the Court of the Crimson King accomplishes the "progressive" musical type by being an album of exoticness and long solos and wanderings through places both quiet ("Moonchild"), disquieting ("21st Century Schizoid Man")  and grand ("The Court of the Crimson King"). 

 

When Genesis created the songs "Firth of Fifth" and "The Cinema Show" you also get archetypal examples of the progressive rock song.  I was just listening to "Sheep" by Pink Floyd and noting how the whole song goes back and forth in extended passages of surging forward then downshifting, then surging forward again while the lyrics are painting the perspective of the animal onto the experience of humanity. 

 

And the most satisfying aspect of a progressive rock song for me is the climax that comes when the instruments play at their most energetic and the volume is the greatest and the mood is the most ecstatic or powerful.  Then there is a sense of a progression to either a higher plane (Jungian perspective, lol) or some sort of emotional release (Freudian perspective, lol). 

 

I guess another element of a great progressive song and one that defines what progressive rock means to me is that a certain theme is worked repeatedly on the instrument.  That theme may encounter a few or a great many influences along the way but it comes out a bit stronger in the end.  This is common in songs I think except that most pop songs and songs of other genres down build up to the final chorus so much as the final chorus concludes the song.  The idea being that you start in one place and get somewhere else, somewhere better, somewhere clearer...and not just finish off your mood or idea with a brief instrumental ornamentation.  So the flatter the "progression" of the song, the less progressive it is.  Progressive rock takes you "higher" whether in a psychodelic sense, spiritual sense or other sense. 

 

Anyway I am just trying to get at what I see the central characteristics of progressive rock to be and how a single song can best capture what that word means to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a progressive music scene in the late 1960s that Warhol/Velvet Underground were part of - and it preceeded what we now call Progressive Rock, so this usage is correct.

 

One of the main points of progressive music to me is that it isn't a particular sound or stlye - or how could it be progressive?

Yeah, also about Magma, some of that RIO crap, and MotW... I mean really, how has that music, along with the bands you mentioned, really progressed music at all? I mean name one f**king legitimate way...

Let's face it, "progressive" as it's mainly referred to has come to be used to describe a genre... or even just a mindset about music... not music that is "breaking new ground" whatever that even means at this point.

 

Not as surprising being on a forum, but one user referred to Children of Bodom as progressive metal.

 

 

Ahh I remember another one from a newbie who left after one post:

 

 

Well he didn't left after his post, he left after the replies

 

Iván

 

Oh god, let's not bring politics into it.....

 

 

In terms of prog as a musical genre, it's not incorrect to call SX and TFK prog either, regardless of how creative or nor they are.  What I don't follow as far as the prog metal scene goes is the classification of bands like Nightwish or Epica as prog metal, because I don't hear anything there as progressive as Iron Maiden's Powerslave-SSOASS phase or their last three albums for that matter.  But Mike makes a distinction between symphonic metal/rock as in Evanescence and more sophisticated bands like the above bands and I wouldn't really argue with such a distinction either...especially if it makes more people get into metal.  

 

I agree totally, I can't believe how etc can even dare call themselves progressive.

 

I always thought them to be more mainstream.

 

But then what the hell do I know, like you, I mainly talk to plants and dogs!  

 

 

 

Essentially, the very word would suggest something transitional and that would include intelligent enough musicians that would mix various concepts at hand ... something that the intelligenzia in this board has a hard time dealing with otherwise they would open up and clean up the list to reflect the very definition that you suggested.

 

To me, listening to Topographic Oceans, is no different than listening to a Mahler Symphony ... (I've heard Bethoven's too many times ... hehe) ... or something else ... and I find it weird when someone says that blah and blah is not progressive and a band that has considerably less musical talent and learned content gets 3 or 4 mentions ... it is a list for top of the (progressive) pops ... and has nothing to do with the real thing or music progression and experiments that you suggest ... and that is the only thing I reject.

 

Actually things like Magma make a lot more sense to music and in a musical context if you leave America for a few years and go enjoy music through out Europe ... but since that's not an option for a lot of prog specialists here in this board, comments like this go through ... and that's sad.

 

In many ways, Magma has Carl Orff and a classical music tradition to thank a lot more than it does rock music, played by un-educated idiots that would not know music if they saw it in their face or sleep.  However ... I'm not going to be cynical and say that they have no talent ... and can not create something new, for many of them do! And music history is sull of these examples!

 

So, if you don't think, or more than likely do not understand, or get what someone like Magma and a lot of the more weird and abstract folks are doing ... at least give them the benefit of the doubt ... not everyone is stupid and does not know what they are doing ... and you should really take a good listen to those choral arrangements in Magma ... they are insane! And they can do it in concert! And blow your sox off! Let me tell you that a 15 minute standing ovation in SF was so emotional that Christian had tears in his eyes ... but you wouldn't care?

 

Maybe that's what doesn't interest you?

Don't worry.

Your post was stupid too.

 

However, that is a false statement none the less, since he had nothing to do with really creating the Velvets.