Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog
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=72827
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 02:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog
Posted By: progpositivity
Subject: Seeking a more elegant definition for Prog
Date Posted: November 01 2010 at 20:24
|
Many attempts have been made to define Progressive Rock, most of which end up becoming rather long and "wordy". Often, the less complicated a functional definition can be, the better. So I'm striving for at least some measure of restraint and elegance here.
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating elements from the rock idiom in which the writer or performer seeks to expand beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints. Is there a critical element missing from this definition? If so, how can we introduce it to the definition while still keeping it as elegant as possible? (Ex: I currenlty don't think the specific manner in which someone attempts to make their music progressive is critical to the definition. Do you think I'm incorrect in this assertion?)
Conversely, perhaps there is something you consider superflous in the definition. The trick to such and elegant definition is - of course - determining what constitutes the "rock music idiom". But that makes perfect sense to me since we are - after all - defining Progressive Rock.
So, for bonus points, I'll go ahead and make an attempt at quantifying the "rock music idiom" - which will probably expand the scope of this post way too far and wide - but hey - it's too late to turn back now...
Rock music: A popular form of music usually written in a 4/4 time signature with a very strong backbeat on the 2nd and 4th beats. It is performed by small groups, most often using electric guitar, acoustic guitar, electric bass guitar, drums, and sometimes keyboard instruments. Rock songs usually feature vocals, and a simple verse/chorus/bridge structure. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Replies:
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 01 2010 at 20:30
| Would struggle to cover progressive electronic in its scope, I think. The jazzier side of Canterbury, maybe. Otherwise, this is the most desirable way to define prog but it would be too inclusive for this or most other prog databases or even for the requirements of prog listeners per se because it is a bit difficult now to correct the fallacious notion that odd time signatures has anything to do with it and your definition doesn't mention it anywhere. |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 01 2010 at 20:41
|
Rogerthat: Good questions/observations! I'll try to look at them "one at a time".
Re: Prog Electronica
Their connection to the rock idiom may seem tenuous but I would suggest that electronic artists like Vangelis, Larry Fast and Tangerine Dream really did think of themselves as having some level of connection to the rock music scene. They used electronics to expand beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints. So I personally would say that this definition includes them.
Could it be that this definition of prog allows room for legitimate debate as to whether prog electronica belongs as a subgenre of prog - without actually taking a firm stance? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 01 2010 at 20:56
|
Rogerthat, Admittedly, this is a very inclusive definition for prog.
Are you thinking that it is a liability that this definition allows songs to be considered "prog" even though they don't have an odd time signature? I've been thinking that this is actually a benefit in that it includes most of Pink Floyd's discography (which is in 4/4) as well as the classic Genesis songs that are in 4/4. Or are you saying that this definition - by not mentioning odd time signatures - might challenge the manner in which some peoples have grown accustomed to thinking about prog?
Although odd time signatures are one very common manner in which a writer or performer may seek to expand beyond rock's traditional musical limitations and constraints, it is not the only way this can be done. I would say odd time signatures are a common characteristic of prog but not a requirement in order to be defined as prog.
Are you thinking this definition might exclude the jazzier side of Canterbury? I wasn't 100% sure whether that is what you were saying or not...
Thanks for your posts. They are interesting discussion points - all of them! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: TheOppenheimer
Date Posted: November 01 2010 at 21:12
|
Most of the beautiful things in life need no explanation: love, reason, belief, family, music (prog). Maybe, the best definition is no absolute definition, but letting each of us define what prog means to us. We live in a relative world, and the important things, that trascend our beings, are subjective, or not definable at all. Maybe, the best definition comes from just feeling (or listening to) prog. ------------- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A veces es cuestión de esperar, y tomarte en silencio. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 01 2010 at 21:12
Yep. You are right, if that's what you implied, that odd time signatures arise out of the writer breaking the shackles of traditional rock cliches. But lot of people no longer seem to grasp this especially because in some modern prog, odd time signatures do seem to have been used for the sake of it and without any support from the development of the composition.
Potentially. Can't readily think of any Canterbury band which didn't have some rock in their music at any point but this could be an issue. More pertinently, an issue in the JR/F section. Yes, your definition could provoke debate on whether progressive electronic is indeed part of progressive rock, while undoubtedly being progressive MUSIC. But the past trends on this website seem to suggest an inclination to maintain things as they are and not court controversy. |
progpositivity wrote:Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 06:20
|
prog rock = a sophisticated, intelligent form of rock music Hmm, that's pretty good for starters. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 08:28
| Personally, I like your definition, but I know very well it will not satisfy everyone, since it seems each individual has his/her own reason as to why they like prog rock, and certainly one sole definition can not possibly include them all. That said, it's important to mention that prog rock is only one form of progressive music, which also includes jazz, electronic music, blues, etc, and since all these tend to influence each other, makes defining them much more complicated. |
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 11:11
Intelligent, maybe. All music requires intelligence to create, and certainly prog requires more than some other genres; no intelligence is needed to listen to it of course. But your phrasing implies that other rock music is not intelligent, surely a generalisation.
Sophisticated, why? Even if, in some cases, the musicians in question are "sophisticated" people, I'm not sure that the music can be decribed in this way..... ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 11:18
lolno ------------- 
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 13:12
| Here's a clue: if your definition is of the form: "like other music, except better", it's wrong. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 02 2010 at 15:46
Get WalterDigsTunes .... I'm sure his definition will have a finger on it -- and close the discussion!
(Heheheh)
That's actually pretty good in my book ... but it is not "wide" enough.
"Music springing from, or incorporating other elements in music from rock, to classical to traditional musics, and in the process the writer/performer creates a new music and expand the abilities of an instrument, or challenge the precepts of music design and composition."
Not sure this is a good definition at all ... probably the most important definition of "rock music" that you did not mention is ... it is "electric" ... there was a lot of music before that had the same time and the various backbeats but it was not called "rock music" because it was not loud and shook your ears like a rock can!
If I may suggest, you want to "expand" your view of the music, instead of cutting it down ... your definition of "rock music" makes it look like Chuck Berry should be God and everyone else stinx. But my main concern is that we're treating "rock music" as inferior to other forms of music by saying that it is sophomoric, highschoolish and stupid and can not do anything else with the music at all ... and you know darn well that's not true at all ...!
I would stage this instead to something like, and make a point of highlighting the popular side of things ... popular rock music tends to be centered around songs that can be played on radio or various television outlets for music. In general, "progressive" music is more attuned to the work itself, and is less centered on the radio/television aspects and demands, or the "fame" in order to get the new music, defined and created.
There are, still, many styles of "progressive music" that still follow very old concepts and ideas in music, like the sonata format, the symphonic definitions, the chamber music definitions, that have been a part of music history for hundreds of years. In general, most "progressive" music, nowadays (2010) is not original and is only trying to emulate some musical ideas and concepts that were used 40 years ago in rock music history.
The ability for today's bands to create something totally original and have it raise the conscience of the public like the original "progressive" styles did, is a part of "art history" and not just music and rock history. Most of the "progressive" music in those days were a part of the art's scenes and were also a comment on the socio-political concerns at the time. And this part, you are not giving the musicians credit for, and by doing that, your definition will be hollow and will not emcompass the very soul and reason of why a lot of music exists.
Good luck with the descriptions ... but hoping that you do not take this incorrectly, your description is not a well versed and intelligent one in regards to people, their time and place. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 12:56
|
rock = graffity
prog = the Nightwatch |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 03 2010 at 16:03
|
Hi,
Progpositivity ... the main difference between a lot of bands today and those that started out what we have come to know as "progressive", is that many of the musicians today -- do NOT -- have as much to fight for as we did in those days.
Granted, a lot of that may have to do with the fact that television hit its stride in color around 1965 and became full fledged horror movie on every evening in color by 1968 and that made VietNam and the IRA things quite big and important ... and horrific ... and a lot of the arts in those days used that social-political upheaval for their subjects ...
In the end, if you break Epitath, and The Endless Enigma to just notes and chords and some other "prog" definition that was not used at the time at all, you have taken the very soul of the music out. The nice touches and highlilghts that KC's drummer used, get all wasted, since they can not be defined musically as much as they can be defined as an "accent" to the point being made with a lyric or an instrument.
The fairy tale thing, did not start in England, although Genesis became one of the really big names doing it. Fairy tales have a huge history in Europe, that is not new to England, and a lot of these had their socio-political comments as well, and in many ways much stronger ...
So, all in all, the music we love and are wanting to discuss is a major part of the time and place ... whereas today, you can use Dream Theater as an example ... trying to make itself important with nice lyrics and good phrasing ... however, in the end it is a bit hollow when compared to the original (lyrically wise) ... but when it comes to the compositional side, is where they are strong, other than the fact that in the end, they are using the same typical rock music concepts, but with 10 minutes instead of 5. To me that is not really that progressive and better fits "neo" since it is not true progressive ... kinda like ... fake progressive.
That's not to say, that there are no bands out there that can do their own thing, and make it matter. But your point of concern, usually, is not some flight lyric, or poem, that supposedly means one thing or another, that makes it progressive because it is better written, or bigger (in ego as well) as most popular music.
What we called "progressive" was, above all ... massively original music that challenged the status quo in all music levels and concepts. And to define it away from that, is sad, and it lowers the level and the ability of the musicians at hand, that did as good, if not better work, than most music history in the past 400 years ... and I'm not sure that you can see that, when you are simply sticking to some of the minor elements in popular music.
The 20th century's greatest gift to music is the one that "classical music" doesn't like ... it's called ELECTRICITY. And that gave us something that no one saw, foresaw, or expected ... when the only history of music for the past 200 years had been the orchestra getting bigger, not even any new instruments. So you must see, how important this is, and why so much of the classic music culture thinks that the electric music is the popular version and not the good music. The folks you and I love, took that to task, and showed that most of the "classic music" composers of the time were lazy, and not educated enough to even understand their place in music, and only work with variations upon the notes and chords and were calling it "music" ... and here came the kiddies and they blew it all up ... they really did ... and in the process they showed more musicianship that almost 95% of all the classical folks going around doing concerts in any college campus.
There was more to the electric music ... even though the likes of Stravinsky broke the boundaries of what instrumentation and instruments did, and folks like Orff broke the metal in the vocals possible, in the end, what all that did, was show the "musicos" that a lot more was happening in music that the "classic" nature of things was refusing to accept. Already there were blues/jazz groups doing a lot of good work, that was being ignored ... and you know it ... it happened ... rock music came right behind it ... actually it might be even possible to say that it was already happening with rock music ... it's hard to imagine that no one was playing the guitar a little wilder than the jazz/blues folks ... we just don't have their names ...
IF you see the whole thing as a part of music history, instead of trying to carve out a separate node for this music, I think you will find a lot more satisfying answers and connections ... that make this music quite valuable to your time and mine.
Again, as mentioned above ... it's your choice. An "empty" definition, is not going to last, and tomorrow someone will have another definition, because yours was not strong enough. BUT, a nicely studied and defined history of music showing where this fits on the sequence of things ... would help, a lot more, to ensure that "progressive" music is defined once and for all ... even the "music'os" would not be able to reject the massive -- and intelligent -- study and work put together ... and that kind of work, is the only one that will be remembered ... as you can tell by the music itself. Everything else, including the color of your t-shirt or jeans ... is not important!
Hope this helps ... just trying to help your work. This stuff is important, but we do not need yet another rock'less definition, and I mean one that is meaningless. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 09:19
|
I allways wonder, why............
Why do you want this definition.
Do you want to exclude something from the music you listen too.
Do you want a debate about the music currently allowed on PA
Do you actualy belive that artists making music think this way, about what they do.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 19:40
|
Hi tamijo. To answer the question "why"...
I certainly don't want to debate about what music is currently allowed on PA.
I just think this is a different angle on a subject that has been discussed a lot. Most attempts to define prog get very lengthy.
The goal here is to be minimalist, to not include anything in the definition that is not required in order to create a useful, informative and accurate depiction of the concept.
Of course, useful, informative, accurate, and required are all going to be subjectively evaluated so we will never get unanimity in that respect.
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating elements from the rock idiom in which the writer or performer seeks to expand beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 19:49
In the end, I don't think we need a definition.
What we need is a better understanding of the history that brought us here.
You can take all the music history courses in the world, and appreciation of whatever music for the past 1000 years ... and in the end, not much of it will make much sense to you in the historical graphs, until you learn some more about the time and the place and the music that was then.
Too many of these "articles" about music, and I don't mean to hurt anyone, only to CHALLENGE them to do even better, is simply not good enough work, and is not researched. It is information and ideas taken from a fan website or two, that lacks historical perspective and a concise understanding of anything about the music, except the fact that "they like it".
We are in the internet age ... learning about these things, TODAY, is easy, and it is all over the place. What is scary is people continually posting and trying to re-invent the wheel yet again, and this is not necessary. What is necessary is expand the use and the ability of that wheel ... and that is what many of those people are not doing, and I am challenging them ...
No one will make school/academic history and appreciation in music because of fans. The music has to have something behind it ... and the it is not just a simple beat, or design ... it's a totality that exists that made sense and is a true photograph of that time and place ... because all the rest of any music that is considered "progressive" is just rock'n'roll and nothing else but. Not to mention a fame game!
You decide ... but in the end, if all history is nothing but some idealistic concept ... in the end, no one is gonna care ... and that is what you want? Ideas come and go and all of us think of Michelangelo! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 20:08
|
Rogerthat, You make some interesting points. But I think the one about time signatures relates more to qualitative judgments of particular pieces of progressive rock music rather than whether the music should even be allowed to qualify for inclusion within the genre. I’m seeking a definition which allows room for inspired prog and routine prog, innovative prog and imitative prog. Otherwise, our very definition of “progressive rock” becomes a judgment of how good music is. I’m suggesting that - independent of the motivation, inspiration and intentionality on the part of the composer or artist – to whatever extent the mere presence of an odd time signature within a rock song is sufficient to expand the song’s scope beyond rock music’s traditional restraints and constraints, to that extent the song qualifies as a “progressive rock” song. You have certainly helped in this minimalist quest, for we have now removed the artist from the equation! Independent of the artist… a piece of music either springs from or incorporates the rock idiom or it does not. The music either expands beyond the traditional expectations/limitations of “rock” or it does not. Concerns about how noble, mercenary, visionary or derivative the composer or artist may or may not be are peripheral! (Important perhaps – but peripheral to whether a song should be allowed to qualify as “progressive rock”.) Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating elements from the rock idiom while expanding beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints. By this definition, a rock song in 7/8 almost always will qualify as a “prog song”. We could then proceed to discuss whether we think the song is effective in its use of the odd time signature or not, whether the song was inspired or visionary or not. In other words, a song can be a crappy and derivative progressive rock song, but still be a “progressive rock” song nonetheless. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 20:21
Progressive Rock: music that sometimes sounds different than other music, but not always. 
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 20:23
|
Rogerthat,
If there was a Canturbury song which didn't spring from or incorporate any elements at all from the rock idiom... and that song was completely jazz, then according to this definition it would not be "progressive rock". I cannot think of any example. Some Canterbury became so jazzy that it inhabited the same sonic space as jazz-rock fusion IMO.
Like you said, this becomes very pertinent in the realm of Jazz-rock fusion. That is why our definition allows for music to incorporate elements from the rock idiom. In the case of jazz rock fusion, it is jazz incorporating elements from rock.
If there is a Jazz Rock Fusion band out there somewhere which doesn't really incorporate any elements from the rock idiom, according to this definition, they would not qualify as progressive rock. (I question whether they would qualify as Jazz Rock Fusion either but that's beyond the scope of this thread I suppose)
I believe progressive electronic is part of progressive rock according to my definition. That is becuase I was there to see Larry Fast, Tangerine Dream, and Vangelis filed right next to the other popular "rock" records prog and non-prog: Everyone from Yes and Genesis to Jackson Brown, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, Journey, Styx, Toto, Grand Funk... They were generally accorded similar respect (or derision) as the symphonic proggers like Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, et al.
But to whatever extent someone wants to argue that the music did not at all incorporate any elements of nor spring from the rock idiom in any way, they could use this definition to argue that electronic prog is not progressive rock.
I currently don't have a problem with this definition allowing that discussion to take place. But I fall on the side of "yes, electronic prog does incorporate some elements of the rock idiom". ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 20:30
Thanks Manuel.
I think you hit upon an important topic. Sometimes we want to include everything we like under the progressive rock umbrella. But it is certainly "OK" to enjoy "good" music that isn't "progressive rock". To say that something isn't "prog" is not an insult!!!
While this particular definition may exclude some progressive popular music here and there from qualifying as "progressive rock", in actuality, the rock idiom has been so pervasive within the modern era of popular music that this definition is surprising inclusive.
That may be a pragmatic perspective more than a denotative concern but it is an interesting one I think nonetheless. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 20:31
|
It's a flower that smells really bad.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 21:06
|
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating elements from the rock idiom while expanding beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints. As helpful as those adjectives may be, I'll need to "steer clear" of the words "sophisticated" and "intelligent" in a definition of progressive rock for 3 reasons, the first of which may be nit-picky, but, "here goes"...
1. Strictly speaking, music cannot have intelligence. Music can be complex, but not intelligent. A composer can illustrate his great intelligence through the manner of music he creates. A listener will use his intelligence to understand a piece of music.
When someone says "progressive rock is intelligent music", I suspect the speaker may actually be implying that progressive rock music appeals to and/or is created by people who are intelligent and sophisticated.
2. I don't believe that either of these descriptors introduces anything uniquely "progressive rock" to the equation. Providing we allow the anthropomorphism of music having intelligence and sophistication, I believe that some jazz, opera, chamber music, classical music and even some folk music all could quality as intelligent and/or sophisticated. This is not to say that progressive rock qualifies any less - only that this is not a unique identifier of the genre.
3. Perhaps akin to #2, I think that calling progressive rock "intelligent, sophisticated" music implies that other music is not intelligent and sophisticated.
Even worse, if we are - in actuality - inadverdently implying that progressive rock music is music that appeals to and/or is created by people who are intelligent and sophisticated, might we also end up implying that people who create or enjoy other - less complicated - forms of music are less intelligent or less sophisticated.
Even classical music, infamous for music snobbery doesn't dare define themselves as "intelligent music" or "sophisticated music", do they? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 21:16
I don't think we need a definition. But I would "like" to have one that is both concise and functional.
I do think a better understanding of the history that brought us here is a worthwhile goal. To some extent, it deepens and widens our understanding of and appreciation for progressive rock.
I will stop short of saying that it is essential to merely creating a definition of progressive rock, however. Just as there must be an efficient way for novices and casually interested people to get a basic definition of "Gestalt therapy" without digging deeply into its history, framework and methodology, there must also be a way to define progressive rock that is informative and accessible to the general person on the street.
Then again, a definition may not be what you are looking for. Perhaps you could create a thread named "A better understanding of the history that brought us here" or "learning more about the time and the place and the music that was then". I think that would be a very interesting thread. I would enjoy reading and keeping up with it! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 04 2010 at 22:53
Wow, you almost convinced me with that one. Over the years, I have heard many arguments on this but this must be the most convincing line of argument in favour of odd time signatures I have come across, simply that it is not common in rock music. Hmm..., no, I consider odd time signatures too minor an element of music to consider a song that is a traditional rock song in all aspects but for being written in 7/8 to be prog. Regardless, it does not affect your definition in any way and no more did I say that your definition would have to incorporate odd time signatures, for I am glad it does not.  "Music that incorporates rock elements and goes beyond the traditional constraints of the genre" is fair enough.Re Canterbury, I am not so sure about how rock Supersister's To The Highest Bidder is. It is unmistakably Canterbury, however, and I would not think of calling it anything other than prog. So, are the chief characteristics of Canterbury not closely tied to rock in general? At what point does prog go so far beyond the boundaries of rock that the rock elements in it are no longer significant? If we then say it is therefore not progressive ROCK, would that sort of defeat the purpose of "progressive"? |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 05:27
If we need to define in a simple way, I go with that one.
 ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 05:50
I totaly agree with the above. Originality is the important aspect, and as such anyone making similar music today, can never reach the level of interest that the poiners did, they have to add something unik, or they are just, as a violinist playing Bach. Great Handycraft, but Bach is the artist.
Lots of new band today (more or less sucesfully) ad something new, making them interesting as art.
But to make music fitting in to one or the other definition of prog. is not interesting in itself.
And as such, that definition wont be interesting either. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 07:02
It's okay as far as it goes. Though there are issues of relativity, circularity, and categorization that I think need some further consideration. Does a definition of prog has to be relative to rock? By asserting this, you may exclude non-rock prog acts like purely ambient and electronic muisc (e.g. Tangerine Dream). By introducing other music categories in a definition, these need to be defined as well. You also introduce rock's limitations and constraints in your definition, these are presumably disputable and not particularly clear. There is a general problem in defining words with words in that each word call for yet a definition and thus poses a problem of circularity. This can be solved by either by attempting abstract logic definitions or introducing basic-level and simply structured categories in the wordy definition and assume further definition isn't necessary. Prog is a very complex category. Your definition implies that category membership is determined by absence or presence of discrete elements, all musical of character, and somewhat easily determinable. It's my view, that music doesn't consist of discrete elements - category membership isn't determined by extracting elements and determine whether or not they collectively suffice as sufficient conditions for prog. Rather, an instantiation of prog is to be viewed as a whole and category membership is determined by a lot of diverse factors, which are all dependant on and resides within the determiner's conceptual system - and thus, it's inevitably a very subjective matter what is and is not prog. |
Posted By: The-time-is-now
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 09:44
|
Hmmm... Progressive rock is linked to a period, let's say 1969-1979 (to discuss). It's important to mention that, because bands from that period defined the form, and because a lot of 'newer' bands get inspired by their compositions -------------  One of my best achievements in life was to find this picture :D |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 09:53
This I think addresses the heart of the matter. The quest for a definition of what is aesthetically appealing to us is I fear ultimately futile and probably counter productive. Why do you seek to arrive at parameters that limit a phenomenon's appeal when you wouldn't apply the same discipline to the reasons you chose the woman who is currently your wife? (All these definitions fall short because I ain't you compadre) ------------- 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 10:00
But it's not about choosing a wife, it's about simply defining a genre in terms that someone new to it and inquisitive about it would understand. "Oh, you can't define it, you just 'feel' it" is not helpful at all even if that is eventually what I was left to do in my early days of exploring prog. Thankfully, I heard good representations of the genre first up but it need not be that way for everyone. progpositivity's definition is one of the more concise and broad-based ones that I have read and - I must disagree here with Paravion - it is not actually trying too much to determine the elements that go into music. It is simply saying 'ambitious rock based music' which is pretty wide (though the point about rock needs to be addressed for the definition to be complete). If it was indeed not about styles or musical elements at all and entirely about a progressive ideal, then may I suggest the cross-section of bands accepted by this database would be vastly different (and also restricted to far fewer bands because only a minority of bands that get called prog rock are truly progressive).
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 12:58
|
Hi Progpos.
Thanks a lot for your last comment to my own proposal for definition and for your, I'll say, quite incisive characteristic of my goal as being "..to create a precise and detailed structure of classification of prog."
Then I want to say that I'd like to contribute to your quest for "minimalist definition" as I think it can have a good functional purpose. It sounds like an interesting theoretical challenge, too,when your ambition also is a "..definition which provides an accurate depiction of the essence of prog."
But I don't think I'll be able to contribute the next couple of days as I'm quite busy with my own post.
Meanwhile good luck
Cheers
David
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 14:33
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 14:51
I prefer to state that "progressive" and its derivative in "prog" is a VASTLY VARIED AND COMPLEX styles of music that tend to mix, match and change conventional thinking in regards to most music composition and performance.
The problem is, that even my statement is a bit vague, but it does give credit to the other categories, specially ones that we tend to ignore. Like no one thinks about the Incredible String Band as progressive, and they make most of the progressive mamma and pappa bands that we love look stupid when it comes to quantity and continuous inventiveness of material ... and not for 2 albums only!
I understand the premise, but want that "definition" to be able to state, and show, that ... the majority of that music came alive ... because there was a scene ... and it was not in one place only ... it was felt all over the world and its artistic notions and peculiarities spread much like a wild fire does. And it created some wonderful things.
That's not to say that we have to have a "scene" to create some music, but having a wider appeal and incresing its abilities with other artists, is what helped create this whole thing ... please everyone ... go check out "Tonite We All Love In London" ... and then ask yourself ... why all these different people and music are all together ... and you will know why the music became so important ... AND we remember it.
And then, if you have the guts ... go check out the beat poets ... and where they were and with whom ... and one day you might say ... what were Robert Wyatt, Syd Barrett, Kevin Ayers, Burroughs, Daevid Allen, Ginsburg and so many others ... doing in the same house? Having just sex? ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 16:53
Thanks for reading the post and for sharing your perspective. Minimalism tends to have this effect on people from time to time. I can only ask that we not judge "Music for Airports" by compositional standards one would use to judge a symphonic classical work. The goals of the two pieces of music are very different. I'll go a little more into that later.
But first, I'd like to call attention to the pivotal word "or" in the definition. "Music springing from or incorporating elements from the rock idiom..."
The sentence states that the music either springs from the rock idiom or incorporates elements of the rock idiom. It does not say that it needs to do both at the same time. In this respect, it is not circular at all.
For example, most jazz rock fusion doesn't usually spring from the rock idiom. It still qualifies as progressive rock (according to this definition) because it incorporates elements of the rock idiom while expanding beyond the genre's traditional musical limitations and constraints.
In response to the allegation that this definition has become so general that it has become bereft of meaning altogether, I must disagree.
Is this definition open to a limitless set of creative possibilities? Yes. But "progressive rock" is also open to such. This definition does not mandate any certain approach to creating progressive rock. Nor does it attempt to list the most common stylistic elements of progressive rock music. Any attempt to do so would fall woefully short of the goal because the potential approaches and elements are infinite.
Does this definition also allow some of the most dull retro-style retread music to qualify? Yes. But I would suggest that retro-retreads of music that expand beyond the traditional "rock idiom" do belong in the genre. We may discuss whether we believe these pieces of music are lame progressive rock or delightfully old school progressive rock, but I do believe they should qualify to fit in the genre. I will readily concede that it is highly dependent upon the definition of the "rock music idiom". But I don't think that is a bad thing. Most people have an intuitive understanding and appreciation for rock music. For those who struggle understanding the "rock music idiom", or for those who simply enjoy defining things, creating a definition for the "rock music idiom" could be another interesting endeavor! (Even though specifically defining the "rock idiom" is beyond the scope of this post, I did indulge myself by throwing some ideas on the table. Someone else surely can do a much better and more comprehensive job of it than I did.)
In this post, I am content to establish that there is a "such thing" as a "rock music idiom" and that "progressive rock music" expands beyond its traditional limitations and constraints.
Finally, when writing a paper for a class at school, one is provided a goal. Most papers are intended to provide detailed information and/or exposition about a specific topic. Sometimes the assignment is for the author to put forth a case and to then be persuasive. A well written paper for school will be edited and re-written by the author a few times before finally getting "turned in".
But this post is not a scholastic article or a paper for a class at school. It is merely an attempt to create a useful and generally informative definition for "progressive rock" that is as short and uncomplicated as possible.
Merriam Webster offers a definition of "book" as follows: "a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume". That would make a terrible "paper at school". I think Merriam Webster would get far worse than a "C" if that was a paper for school.
Thanks again for your comments! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 17:34
I think we are very, very close to agreement.
A good example could be The Cars song "Panorama". It lives right there on the border line. To the average rock listener, this song will sound curiously odd. I think they did a great job with the 7/8 on it. But is it "progressive rock"?
Another example that might be easier for us to summarily dismiss would be Dionne Warwick's hit song "I Say a Little Prayer for You" (actually written by Burt Bacharach). It has some 10/4 in the verse and 11/4 in the chorus. I am always fascinated by how natural Bacharach made those subtle time changes. For what it's worth, I tend to think that making an odd time signature sound natural is more challenging than making one that sounds ostentatious. But that is another topic altogether I suppose. The question of the day in this post is... "Even so, is it progressive rock?"
The proposed definition provides a structural framework to guide the discussion while stopping short of "taking a side". Does the song spring from (or incorporate elements from) the rock idiom, and does it stretch the boundaries that idiom or not?
At this moment, I think of the song in question as a rather clever piece of artistic pop. It fits so tidily within all the rest of popular rock music's traditional boundaries - and it disguises its complex rhythmic structure so effectively - that one can certainly argue within the parameters of this definition that it is not prog.
Most of the time, however, I do think rock songs in odd time signatures will qualify as "progressive rock". Not necessarily "good" progressive rock or particularly "inventive" progressive rock. If any of them are still on the road running, I will say that the "Yugo" is a car. That does not mean I am saying anything about it qualitatively!
 I'll have to go check out Supersister's "To The Highest Bidder". Thanks for the suggestion. I'll let you know my thoughts after I let that song sink in for a while!  ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 05 2010 at 18:33
|
Paravion, you bring up some interesting thoughts. I'll put your words in <brackets> with each of my responses in a new paragraph.
<"Does a definition of prog has to be relative to rock?">
I believe a definition of "progressive music" does not have to relate to rock in any way shape or form. But we are seeking to create a very succinct definition for "progressive rock". My answer is "yes, a definition of progressive rock needs to have some relation to rock".
<"By asserting this, you may exclude non-rock prog acts like purely ambient and electronic muisc (e.g. Tangerine Dream)">
First I'd like to clarify that I do believe Tangerine Dream as well as most ambient and electronic artists creating music even today belong within the broad category of "Progressive Rock".
Theoretically, however, I will answer yes, although I have no agenda to exclude non-rock prog acts from classification as "progressive rock", this definition does allow this to occur.
For example. If we start with a classical composer who decides to write electronic music - and this composer writes and releases the music in a matter unrelated to - independent from - the rock idiom, that music would not be considered "progressive rock" by this definition.
In actual practice, however, the rock music idiom has been so pervasive in popular music over the last half century, most electronic artists do spring from (and others incorporate elements from) it in their works. So pragmatically speaking, virtually all electronic prog artists do get included.
<By introducing other music categories in a definition, these need to be defined as well.>
Actually, I only reference one music category within the definition, and it is "rock". This is not an uncommon practice when defining a term like "progressive rock".
For an example from one of the biggest names in dictionaries, Merriam Webster. They define "top hat" as follows: "a tall-crowned hat usually of beaver or silk". They are using the word "hat" in their definition of "top hat" just as I am using the world "rock" in my definition of "progressive rock".
<You also introduce rock's limitations and constraints in your definition, these are presumably disputable and not particularly clear.There is a general problem in defining words with words in that each word call for yet a definition and thus poses a problem of circularity. >
Every definition uses words to define other words. And so this becomes an issue of semantics in general more than it is a unique problem with any one specific definition of the term 'progressive rock'. Definitions provide us a structural framework around which intelligent discussions can ensue. This one is no different.
It is true that this general definition of "progressive rock" is like a bus that carries us only a certain distance. It "drops us off" at a "bus stop" named "the rock music idiom". Just as Merriam Webster's definition of "top hat" delivers its reader to the word "hat".
Most people have a general concept of the "rock music idiom". There will be much general agreement - but there will also be some differences. To gain further clarity, we would need to then consult a definition of "rock music". But for the purposes of having a succinct definition which conveys the concept of progressive rock, I believe it is better to not have this definition dive into an analysis of the rock music idiom.
Interested students can always "dig deeper" to establish a definition of "rock music"! That is a different thread that I would be intersted in reading!
Even an approach that seeks to provide a list of specific examples, historical contexts and laundry-lists of common elements will be comprised of words. Any number of these words can become a topic of discussion and the subject of definition. Indeed, such an approach, by using so many more words than a standard styled definition, can end up opening the door wider and wider to greater dissent and ambiguity. I think we have seen this very thing happen with the long-form definitions of progressive rock.
<This can be solved by either by attempting abstract logic definitions>
But the goals of this particular definition are elegance and ease of use. Abstract logic and structured categories are inherently more wordy approaches which are more difficult to use in conversation. (I'm not saying they are useless altogether. Only that they are a different endeavor entirely.)
Let's face it. We are proggers. We tend to like it when things are complex. Perhaps a few of us even would like there to be a certain enigmatic quality to the music we love. Something that defies description! Non-members must struggle to "figure it out" as we expound about sub-genre designations. <Prog is a very complex category. Your definition implies that category membership is determined by absence or presence of discrete elements, all musical of character, and somewhat easily determinable.>
I have no problem pleading guilty to having sought to define a genre of music in musical terms. To whatever extend this is possible, it is highly preferable.
My proposal is that "progressive rock", at its heart, is not such a complicated concept after all. Parsing out all of the precise details may become very complex, but a general definition does not need to be. Indeed, introducing more complexity into a definition than is needed can result in reduced clarity very rapidly.
But I would not go as far as to say that these elements are always "easily determinable". They are subjectively determined and we will not always agree. But in general, I think we could all have a lot more clarity regarding what it is we are disagreeing about!
<It's my view...category membership is determined by a lot of diverse factors, which are all dependant on and resides within the determiner's conceptual system - and thus, it's inevitably a very subjective matter what is and is not prog.>
It would therefore appear to me, that in your view, there is no way for us all to share a definition of progressive rock, because we all have different supersets full of our own diverse factors, each weighted differently.
I still think it is expedient, however, to have a succint description which effectively conveys the overall idea.
Thanks for your feedback! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 08:36
|
^ Thanks for your detailed reply. I'd like to dwell on some nitty-gritty details though. About "Rock music idiom" you write "Most people have an intuitive understanding and appreciation for rock music". (I've never head or read anything about a "rock music idiom" before.) This assumption justifies that rock serves as a frame of reference in your definition, because everyone knows what rock is? Maybe. But I don't like the term for the obvious reason that it, for the semanticist (me in a couple of years, hopefully), is difficult to ascribe idiom-status to the music category 'rock'. An idiom is a sequence of words, where the words don't mean what they usually mean, e.g. "kick the bucket" doesn't describe a situation where someone kicks a bucket (maybe, except if one actually does kick a bucket), but rather it describes a situation where someone dies - thus an idiom. Extending this 'fact' to rock would imply that rock, in order to have idiom-status, doesn't mean rock the way it usually does. Also, one-word idioms are hard to conceive of. You may use another sense of idiom, than I do, if that is so, then there are problems of ambiquity that shouldn't occur in a definition. Anyway, you seem to work with a concept of rock that you suppose to a large extend is shared among speakers of English - and that it, as a category, has basic-level status just as 'hat' has in the dictionary example you provide. That's a somewhat valid assumption, nevertheless.
I feel somewhat misunderstod. I'd like you to reconsider what I mean by prog being a complex category. I've not been totally clear, and I'd like to rename complex category to abstract category. Prog is abstract in the sense that it doesn't refer to an entity in a three-dimensional space. This makes it difficult to form a mental image of 'prog' in the same way you easily do with 'hat'. Hat is a concrete category, an entity in a three-dimensional space. That's why I called prog a complex category. Complexity also has to do with prog's status in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy - taxonomies of music. Taxonomies are hierarchical structures of categories in some domain. In a taxonomy of concrete categories there is a level that semanticists call "basic-level categories". For example, take this simplified taxonomy of clothing: CLOTHING | dress ------ hat (Basic Level) | | miniskirt top-hat Basic level categories are those highest in the hierarchy you can easily form a mental of. It's difficult to form a mental image of clothing (without descending in levels), easy with hat and dress, and more detailed (and appealing) in the case of miniskirt. (not sure whether miniskirt is a subcategory of dress, but let's assume) Returning to your definition, I read it as though you assume rock is basic level and that prog is its subcategory. I don't think taxonomies are well suited for abstract categories. Prog is relative to many domains and has a place in many conceptual 'taxonomies', and a conception of prog - it's my view - can easily be independant of rock. Even though, for many reasons, and in many respects, your definition suffices. I just don't like the idea of art being defined - "I love its holy mystery"
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 09:30
Very interesting post which I can't pretend I understand in full but: Although your tongue is clearly in your cheek when you say (and appealing) in the case of miniskirt, does this imply that our mental image of a concrete category can be completely divorced from it's function i.e. no-one imagines a short dress hanging unoccupied in a rack when they see the words 'mini skirt' : we immediately see what the garment is not (what it is designed to reveal) Hope that makes sense and sorry for both flying off on a tangent and the ladies in our midst  -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 10:50
I have technical metal specifically in mind. Apart from odd time signatures, some technical metal may share NO other characteristics of prog rock. However, this leads to another question. The way you have defined it, would such music come under the purview of progressive rock? Yes. Come to think of it, I don't even think there's anything particularly wrong with that, because the distinction between technical and progressive metal is often blurred and incidental. Instead of having an illusory wall between the two, we could probably lump all of it in the prog basket. |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 11:21
|
Here's an elegant one:
Any band that is on Progarchives.com. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 11:34
Plus Metal Archives.com, Plain Vanilla Heavy Rock.com, Pop Groups Some Collaborators Like.com, Balloon Strangling Jazz.com and Obscure Hippy Ambient Bollocks.com BTW I have a very abrasive sense of humour  -------------
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 11:42
I'm not even sure I understand it completely myself. When reading it again, I think it lacks clarity here and there. Anyway, interesting question. I'd suppose that it depends very much on the one doing the conceptualization. If, for instance, a woman working in a clothing store is daily exposed to miniskirts hanging in racks, a miniskirt hanging in a rack is probably the the mental image that gets evoked when she encounters miniskirt uttered or written. Your question poses a further problem at the very heart of cognitive linguistics (which equates meaning with conceptualization), namely, how does one get to know what goes on in other people's minds? < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 14:25
|
<About "Rock music idiom"... I don't like the term for the obvious reason that it, for the semanticist (me in a couple of years, hopefully), is difficult to ascribe idiom-status to the music category 'rock'. An idiom is a sequence of words, where the words don't mean what they usually mean, e.g. "kick the bucket"... Also, one-word idioms are hard to conceive of. You may use another sense of idiom, than I do, if that is so, then there are problems of ambiquity that shouldn't occur in a definition> Thanks for your input! Wow! Are you attending college to become a professor of semantics? Yes, there is another definition of "idiom" that applies much more commonly and specifically to music and to the arts in general. Dictionary dot com conveys it succinctly as "a distinct style or character, in music, art, etc.: the idiom of Bach.". Surprisingly enough, one of Merriam Webster's specific usage examples of the word idiom is: "rock and roll and other musical idioms". I can see that I need to carefully consider the benefits (brevity, elegance) versus the costs (ambiguity, potential misunderstandings) of using the word "idiom" in the definition. I think that is a very valid point for me to consider for revision! I do think it will be a good idea for me to expand the wording to exclude the word "idiom" from the definition. We agree that Progressive rock is not concrete in the way a tangible item like a "hat". Any definition of such a term will, by its very nature, leave more room for discussion, debate, and interpretation. Defining "progressive rock" is similar to defining a term like "neo-conservative". Most definitions will use the word "conservative" (a very abstract word0 within the definition, pointing the reader to look up "conservative" if they need help understanding that concept. These definitions will focus instead upon the elements that differentiate "neo-conservative" from "conservative" in the more general sense. For no better reason than they are a credible name that is freely available online, I return to Merriam Webster for our example: Neoconservative: 1 a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2 a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and Would you not agree that these accepted definitions of "neoconservative" are at least frought with as much, if not moreso, abstract peril? ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 06 2010 at 23:49
|
Hi guys,
I'm sorry to say that I haven't been able to read your posts and thus I don't know what you already have been discussed and which ideas have been put forward. On the basis of my own research and approach to prog definition, I would say though that the essence of prog is to make syntheses of rock and other main music styles. So my suggestion for minimalist prog definition is:
Progressive rock: music which makes complex syntheses of rock and some other main music styles.
"complex" has to be added as there are quite a lot of for instance jazz-rock, folk-rock and space-rock which almost is mainstream rock.
I hope my suggestion can somehow contribute to your discussions.
Best luck
David |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 07 2010 at 01:24
It looks more like an elephant to me.
 |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 07 2010 at 02:00
and a very forgetful one to boot.  -------------
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 07 2010 at 04:30
|
At the other prog definition debate, we also have some interesting discussions, not least about how to classify prog and whether use terms with western or global scope. Doing that I've just thought some more about which syntheses, I can see being made in prog, and I'd mention them here to support my suggestion for definition. They are:
1. musical - of styles
2. historical or of time - syntheses of past (folk, medieval), present (rock) and future (avantgarde)
3. social - synthesis of the culture of the upper classes (classical) and lower classes (rock, folk)
4. geographical - syntheses of music from different countries and regions
and surely also some other.
So I'll say, "syntheses" is surely a heavy weighter.
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 07 2010 at 05:20
I'm not aiming at a professorship. In two years I'll obtain my MA in general linguistics, hopefully.
It's different in the sense that prog referes to instances of art. Neoconservative doesn't. I think that's an important difference. Anyway, I'm not saying that definitions of abstract concepts are impossible and not something a dictionary should do, of course they should. But it's a difficult task. In your example neoconservative is defined in terms of a person of some belief or conviction, and thus it applies a 'meaning as reference' strategy, and that hardly satisfies a semanticist. Lexicography (the making of dictionaries) and semantics (principles of meaning) are not always compatible. Furthermore, neoconservative is even more abstract than prog. Prog has physical auditory substance in form of soundwaves, nevertheless, and thus ranks lower on an abstractness hierarchy. About idioms.  A situation where both idiomatic and literal use of "kick the bucket" applies. It's a very funny picture. I was totally unaware of the use of idiom you use. I've only encountered it in linguistic textbooks, so my understanding is thereafter. I actually assume your use is more frequent, and therefore possibly suitable as an element in your definition - I can't tell. Though, it still bears the risk of confusing semanticists, but they make a living out of confusion, so don't mind them.
No. "music which makes complex synthesis" implies that prog is, by definition (!), a complex style of music, which it isn't. "some other main music styles" is way to imprecise and vague. I just took a quick look at the "How to define and classify progressive rock?" thread and I think it's a mess. I somehow suddenly see the need of a simple and sufficient definition, even though it's hopeless. There seems to be a strong taxonomic orientation with focus on neatly structured and organized categories with subcategories ad libitum. I'd maintain that a taxonomically based definition isn't suited for instances of music (or art in general), primarily because it has no experiential base - we don't experience music relative to taxonomies. A taxonomy is a product of reason, I don't believe reason to be transcendental, so taxonomies are not reflections of reality. This leaves us with nothing besides a world consisting of a diffuse continuum of what we as experiencers try to make sense of. Thus music is essentially uncategorized. This is unsatisfactory and dysfunctional. We inevitably categorize the world around us becuase it serves many purposes. For instance it enables us to talk about things(!), and in particular, what this site is concerned, it serves the purpose of being helpful to people who want to discover 'similar' music. Even though I think some of the categories on PA aren't that necessary, completely random, artificial, somewhat ridiculous, and not based on my preferred principle of categorization, to some - they serve a purpose and have a function. I'm of course okay with that. But when it comes to the point, where a detailed construction of a taxonomy, including discussions of whether "italian prog" has this or that status, becomes central and important, I think a less taxonomically approach is called for, afterall music is not science.
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 05:57
|
All those words wont get you any closer to the truth, only way is to listen, If you listen, and learn, at some point you will know, unless you are so confused by all those magic words that you compleetly lost your instinct. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 10:55
Please don't feel offended by this question, but do you really believe HE has no perception of his own of what is prog? He is trying to define it as a guide for people who may be new to prog and may want to know.
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 13:11
The central thing, for me, is that this detailed establishment of genres and subgenres is so non-important. I tried to explain why. PA's taxonomy of prog says more about prog-fans than prog. My guess as to why this site, a lot of forum discussions, admittance procedures etc. are so focused, and sometimes even dependant on, categorization, must be because prog-fans like to classify. I don't really understand why, just like I don't understand how it's possible to translate auditory experience into a numerical value between one and five as well as language. But that's somehow natural and easy for some. I'd be clueless if I was to rate and review an album. People are different. |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 14:53
My thoughts exactly!
Of course, we could then move on to discuss more subjective perceived relative merits or demerits of the music in question from there. "Progressive rock" doesn't serve as a measure of "good" or "bad". It becomes simply a genre designation that even newbies can understand.
------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 17:01
|
Here is my first attempt to remove the word "idiom" from our succinct, yet precise and reasonably accurate, definition of Progressive Rock.
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints.
Tamijo, I hope you don't think that I'm trying to replace the experience of listening to Progressive Rock music with the simple creation of a short definition for the genre. That is not my goal at all.
But whenever we endeavor to talk about music, we will need to use words. And this is a discussion board after all - so we will be using words quite a lot here. ;-)
For what it is worth, I would like to clarify that my overall goal is to, in fact, fashion a definition for "Progressive Rock" which uses far fewer words than most!
By using less words in the definition, I believe we can arrive at a sentence or phrase capable of more quickly communicating the concept with enhanced clarity.
I earn bonus points if the definition results in a quick explanation that is more inviting and exciting to a prog-newbie than definitions which employ a longer "taxonomic" approach (as Paravion aptly called them).
Finally, this definition will be a "success" if it manages to convey the meaning of "progressive rock" in a manner that minimizes the risk of losing the attention of a moderately inquisitive newbie.
I'm not trying to abolish "taxonomic" definitions or Progressive Rock. They provide a more detailed explanation of a person's vision of progressive rock and can be useful as such. Besides, they clearly aren't going to disappear - so why should I strive to get rid of them?
I would like to send a very big "thank you" to everyone who has helped "fine tune" the definition so far. I really feel that we now have - or at least are getting very close to something worth "testing" on some prog-newbies! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 18:44
My concern is that "rock music" is being described as a "de facto" part of music history, which it still is NOT.
I prefer to HELP establish rock mucic by stating that it is no different than any other music and it uses all elements in music, including some which are better known for being a part of rock/pop/jazz music of the 20th century.
Go to the nearest school and look at the music history section and check out the books ... almost none on "rock music", and in fact, in most cases it's like classical music stops ... since there are no big name composers lested since 1965 or so, having ended with Britten, Penderecki, Stockhausen and the like.
My contention is that rock music, and specially what we call "progressive", as well as a lot of progressive "jazz" (like Keith Jarrett, Jan Garbarek, Egberto Gismonti, and many others) ... has created a large body of music that is the logical extention of that classical music ... with the exception that we are not going to give those folks the credit they deserve for spreading and extending music history ... and we're about to do the same with "rock music", because we are too lazy to help idetify rock music as a serious part of music history, which is how I see "progressive" and "prog" ... but most people here, and definitions, are not even trying to make the music sound right and deserve a place in music history ... they are telling an institution that has hundreds of years that it is screwed up and doesn't know music from a hole in the ground or a thick piece of glass in their nose!
And that would be a mistake.
Before we can decide for ourselves that the music is the gold at the end of the rainblw, let's make sure that we can make the history of music appreciate what we are saying, which is a lot more than "rock music" ... but you and many here, do not know the difference between "rock music" and anything else ... except that in general one is electric and the other is not.!
All music does that ... not just "progressive" or "jazz" ... the main concern these days is that rock music is making so much money that they don't care and figure that music history is crap anyway ... and many of those folks are not making their music any better, except their wallets getting bigger!
It's the reason why I wrote more on the 2nd response/article. I didn't want you to misinterpret the whole thing.
I want to define and make sure this music has its day in history ... but I am not sure that we can if all we compare it to is music that is not even "accepted" into music history and books yet. There is a lot of literature about it, and you and I are trying their hardest to add to it ... but it's still ignored in schools and colleges and if we only "compare" it all to "ourselves" and what we want, then we're not going to succeed. Please spend some time reading music history and seeing how it came about ... check out specially the 1920's and 1930's when surrealism impressed the arts and film and theater, but was ignored in music???? What? ... you gotta be kidding me. IT WASN'T ... but what was out there could not be recorded very well and film was still too expensive. So, for you and I, modern music has no history, until all of a sudden Elvis appears ... and then we have "rock history" .... it's still looked at as a fad and something that is a part of "popular music" and it is not considered important, or even valid music, no matter how hard we try. But when you say ... "with elements from the rock idiom" ... it's like saying ... gee ... so I copied Chuch Berry? ... and I'm sure that Robert Fripp would have a good laugh at that.
We have to get bigger and better ... our critical analysis has to get stronger.
That simple ... but do not use "rock idiom" as a starting or jump point. Were I your teacher and you were writing a paper, I would ask you ... what is the "rock idiom" ... and why are you using a blank statement on a paper that requires specifics and not generalities?
Think music and its history at this point ... not emotionally about what you wrote.
I've done that with my own writing, and all it gets me is into a corner ... it's not about what you wrote, your desire and feeling and emotion is fine ... it's the actual wording that needs to be cleaned up ... so you can move forward with your work.
But ... keep music history in mind ... do not ignore music history and then expect your music to stand up in the middle of the desert ... dead, too!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Nightshine
Date Posted: November 08 2010 at 23:25
|
Hey, I can sum it up real quick! If it's liked by a bunch of stuck-up, middle-aged people with absolutely no relevant contributions to music themselves, then it's prog! :D
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 11:36
|
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints.
Hi again, guys.
I have unfortunately still not been able to read the discussions, you already have made. Have I to make the so far suggested definition as my starting point though, I must say that I don't find it enough informative. To cut it to the bone, it doesn't say more than progressive rock being something more than traditional/mainstream rock. It could thus in my opinion be a good definition for what could be redefined as "experimental rock" but it doesn't tell enough about the essence of prog-rock, the way it mostly is understood today. - The latter is by the way the most crucial point for me to explore as a starting point for the defining process. -
So, I'll suggest something like
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints by adding elements from some other of the main music styles. I think, the addition will also stress better tha fact that it's a definition of a rock genre.
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 11:54
Im just saying, a lot of music is defined as prog. or prog. related, on this site and 1000 of other places, if you listen to just a fractal of this music, you will instinctly know what Prog. sounds like, but you can read 10.000 posts in this forum, and you still wont have a clue.
So defining prog in text, (or rather defining prog again and again) is not very usefull. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 12:06
Was not shooting at anyone, was a general post. look at answer in the post above.
As a music lover, they are irellevant. On the other hand, they make it a bit easier, when you have a site like PA, where you want to split thing up a bit, even though i agree the split is very inconsistant, and its a problem, that artists change style, but still sitting where they started out.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 13:00
| Trite. |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 16:05
|
Do you agree that the question how prog is, or has been, mostly understood is the best starting point for the defining proces? - This could be called a descriptive approach.
Or do you for some reasons consider another starting point, with certain purposes, to prefer? It could for instance be that the understanding of prog, shared of most people, is not correct, and it's therefore important to make a correct definition to educate people. Or another example here could be my own attempt for definition in my article, which I today think has been formulated much with the purpose of making a good structure for classifing prog, and of course the wish of making a broad definition. This approach could be called a normative one.
As an important question is, how and where to search to find an appropiate essence of prog, and that also depends on the purpose of the defining proces?
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:18
I completely agree with this. I would not say that the understanding of prog of most people is off target but that after the 70s, what is prog seems not so clear if we go by what does get called prog. In any case, a definition to explain the genre rather than just sub genre baskets is very useful to educate people. tamijo: If I went by strictly what I 'feel'/consider as PROGRESSIVE rock, only a small percentage of the bands currently part of this database could be strictly considered progressive. People will have different ideas of at what rock can be called progressive because, as Cert1fied explained in a lot of detail in his "Prog versus Progressive: is there a difference" thread, progressive is a sliding scale, not an identified and specific form of music like metal. Broadly speaking, anything above bare basic rock and roll is progressive in some sense and the question is typically over at what point is it progressive enough to be called prog rock and on what basis do we decide this cut-off.
|
Posted By: ferush
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:18
| Respect Constant Innovation & Music Rules; also the "little" songs (leads) can be prog. Read the book Schubert The Progressive: History, Performance Practice, Analysis; by Brian Newbould. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:22
I would prefer to say that we're so empty inside that we have to find a justification to make sure that we feel good about ourselves through some music that supposedly meant more than just ... an excuse for me to get laid one more time!
Which for me it wasn't at all ... but it was for a lot of people nothing but dope sucking and chasing and then sex in its many permutations ... and that is the part that killed a lot of the music in the first place. People ended up confusing the good time with everything else and the music was forgotten ... and the best example of this is right in front of us ... 3 hours worth of it ... and in the end, it means nothing ... we're listening to an anthem we don't give merde about and all around us is nothing but trash and only a handful of people give a damn.
There is no sadder event in my life and the greatest shame of my generation that most people, in the end, did not give a damn about anything except have a good time! ... that is the sign of a fat, lazy and bored society ... where nothing means anything ... and is the main reason why "progressive" had a good start in London and could not in America ... some people gave a damn, but no one knows where they are and even today, many of those people are hiding in the wood work afraid to tell their very own children ... yeah ... I got stoned then ... and yeah ... you came about because we were stoned ...
You can not properly define music without it's time, and rock/jazz/blues is going to be come the greatest gift to music for the 20th century and us, the progressive nerds, are going to be left behind because we're too dam stuck up and not willing to help each other understand the history, the time and the place ... and to many folks, including your definition, the music is not an art ... it's just music that has nothing to do with art or the living or the time and place ... and to me, that is sad, and it hurts ... there is a lot of music that was created to wake you up ... and you are telling that very artist that he's stupid and that the music is sh*t, and had no meaning, because it doesn't fit your description and definition.
My apologies ... it's hard not to get upset about this. If you want to be eloquent and elegant, it is not about make-up ... it's about putting your words together in such a way ... that every one will go ... wow ... that is indeed far out and neat ... I think I'm gonna listen to some of it. But when the sentence and "idea" is vaccuous and you are defending it from a point of view of your own creation ... or one that was created by this board, or people that refuse to accept history, the time, the place and the arts that also did the same thing ... you are, in essence, denying a very part of your internal constitution and as such ... your definition will never be complete ... and capable of having the inner poetry of the heart ... yes, it has your desire and feel in it, but it does not have anything else, and as such it becomes an individual exercise, not a social cause.
It's just a bummer ... that we can not agree on anything to help make the music better ... I'm still fighting for the wrongs and the insults that our generation was given and marked for ... not all of us were so stoned and stupid and out of touch that we couldn't possibly know what music was right or wrong ... and meant more than just some bands that were in it for the fame.
Go see Woodstock again ... and sit from a distance ... and look at the visuals in the end during the anthem without the music (turn the sound down) ... and you will know what I mean ... that whole generation couldn't give a damn about the music, and many of them (today) live in denial, except the fame/farout factor of "I was there". ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:32
|
I am not seeking to deny nor to forget Progressive Rock's history any more than I an seeking to deny or forget the history of Gestalt therapy. But I do believe that the general public should be provided a useful general definition of such concepts, definitions that do not require them to go through a college course or a history lesson before they can begin to understand them.
And so, I was mainly seeking to articulate a definition that would be functional for a wide audience, something succint yet communicative, something generally utilitarian.
If you are asking whether I'm seeking to radically reinvent the way progressive rock music is generally understood, perceived or defined, my answer is "no".
I currently believe that 99.9% (or more) of what most people consider to qualify as "progressive rock" is also accepted as "progressive rock" by this definition.
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints. If it is guilty of any transgression, it is that it allows inclusion of musics that a few might argue should be excluded - but I don't really see that as a weakness at this point in time.
As long as music meets the following two criteria, I think we would do very well to not spend time arguing over whether it qualifies as "progressive rock" or not. From a pragmatic point of view, it appears to me as though this approach is very consistent with the general orientation of PA.
------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:44
This is true and similar to what I said above in different terms.
The problem was a factor of many things coming together and going apart at the same time. One has to give credit to the FM radio rise in the late 60's and early 70's that was playing long cuts for helping get it into the radio for people to listen to. One has to give credit to a couple of periodicals in England that decided that the music was important -- whereas America did not have that and the teen magazines and the movie magazines continued with their star programs! ... it's still like that in America ... !!! 50 years later!
A lot of the "progressive" scenes were total artistic revolutions around a bunch of artists ... to state that NY didn't have a scene, of which the likes of Warhol, Velvet Underground, Burroughs, and others were probably the best example ... is bizarre ... it is by far one of the best examples ... but even then the likes of Iggy and the Ramones revolted against the "art" of it all then.
The genre's basket ... at this point is not necessary, until we have a concensus and design for the music history and we accept that things like In a Gadda Da Vida were actually progressive, but many here laugh, and it wasn't untiol 2 and 3 years later that the other "major" progressive artists took hold, and helped define what we like. San Francisco was major ... but they are all dead to drugs and disease and no one is going to write about it ... and Reagan made sure that they all burned in hell, so to speak.
In America, it was not about the art per se, even though many of us knew it was ... in America, the media turned it all into an anti-social story to make sure that nothing made it through to the thread of society ... and the only thing left today, is a tie die shirt, a peach sign ... and a 60 year old that we say he's silly and probably smoked too much dope!
We have to get past that part of the social segmentation and appreciate how each scene developed in many parts of the world. The scene in Tokyo, was no less alive than the one in London, but no one talks about it ... but at least the Sadistic Mika Band has a heck of a psychedelic album to show for it, making fun of American rock'n'roll! ... so the band must be wierd? ... or just did something because they had nothing better to do?
And the issue with the definition is that ... it is afraid to emcompass the world ... it has to specialize itself away from the rest of the world, and by doing that, when the music came from that world for the most part, in the end, you will take the sould out of the music ... and you will kill it even more.
No kidding! And between you and I there is a lot of marginal stuff that I don't think should be there and some of the reviews are marginal and a friend of the band kind of review ... not about the music and its value.
And before we get to "prog", which is nothing but the harder rocking version of "progressive", we have to learn how to sit, have a cup of tea, and grab each other's best ... and put together the ultimate encyclopedia on the subject and the work at hand. I wish that the folks in the very board "foundation" were interested in that ... to help establish their site even more importantly ... but sadly I think about the art of it all, and not everyone else does. And some folks here think I need some more BM's! ... which is not saying much for theirs, specially when they are talking about a 60 year old man!
I would like to see one of us take these "stories" and examples and start putting together a nice chart that would show the parallels, from the various parts of the world ... and then step away and look at those train lines ... and the definitions of what we are trying to create is about one track ... not all of them ... and that track could go the other way ... instead of us seeing the bigger mattrix and concept of all the tracks.
It can only happen when you expand your mind and ideas ... it can't when we're trying to cut down the size and the meaning of the term. In the end, the only definition that is going to show up is one that will be forgotten and laughed at a year later! We need to create one, that encompasses all of it, and is as good as the music was and is remembered ... so that 40 years from now ... some kiddies can say ... that was good .. that was really good ... !
The biggest problem with the majority of "prog" is that it's not about the "art" at all ... it's mostly about the "sound" and the "scene" ... and nothing else. Some folks have tried to expand it some, but in the end, those are arbitrary decisions and the same band can show up in 5 places and that is confusing to the all of us ... we either consider the artist "progressive" and he might do different things that could be considered this or that, or forget the whole thing ... but to say this person is this and then ignore The Incredible String Band, which is by far much more progressive than most of the bands listed in this board, shows yo how much people listen to hits ... and not the music ... and you know what? ... you do realize that the beginnings of "progressive" music had its design and foundation to get away from the "hits" and "pop music", and you are desecrating it by doing exactly what we need to get away from!
It's bizarre to say the least! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:50
|
David suggested that we append the following to the end of our definition "... by adding elements from some other of the main music styles". Thanks for the contribution David!
This would give us:
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints by adding elements from some other of the main music styles. I'm certainly OK if someone wants to add that.
The reason I have not done so myself yet is that I'm not so sure that adding from another "main music style" is the only way to successfully create progressive rock. It is by far the most common way, but is it the only way? If there are other ways to create progressive rock music, I don't want to exclude them on the basis of them not having added from another main music style.
For example, someone like Brian Eno seems to have created progressive rock by having the vision to strategically remove elements rather than by adding them.
And what about the person who expands beyond the traditional limitations of rock by introducing something incredibly visionary - or by adding something from another music style that is not deemed a "main" music style?
Admittedly these instances are quite rare, so it doesn't become an issue all that often. Even so, those are my concerns about requiring music to "add elements from some other of the main music styles" in order to qualify as progressive rock. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 19:58
As I mentioned before, it just bothers me that we are assuming that everyone knows what the "rock genre" is ... and I'm not sure that such a thing exists!
The rest is fine! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 20:18
I agree rogerthat. It can be a very subjective and relative "moving target". More artistic than what? More complicated than what? More innovative than what? More dynamic than what?
For example, there is some "progressive rock" that sounds much less "progressive" to my ear now than it did 20 years ago when I first heard it. The music is exactly the same, but I am now more familiar with 7/8 measures and phrasings, etc. Perhaps the Rush songs "Limelight" or "Tom Sawyer" are decent examples?
I believe the genesis of the term "progressive rock" was to describe bands and songs that moved ("progressed") rock music beyond its traditional limitations and boundaries.
This is a modest enough hurdle to allow most progressive rock music fans to have the bands and songs they love most included within the genre.
And if songs have rock elements or roots and they do progress beyond the traditional limitations of rock, why not include them anyway? On what basis do I exclude them? Am I trying to impose a measure of "quality control" on the music I allow to be called "progressive rock"? That would not seem wise. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 09 2010 at 21:18
As the first, Progpos, please, don't assume progressive rock being something quite specific when we are in the middle of the proces of defining the term. Next, now I understand, you're aiming at a very broad definition, and I'd say, clearly a broader one than the most used - just for trying establish the facts. Then I can say, it's quite alright with me to define prog so broadly, so, I withdraw my suggestion for addition.
In fact, I'd say such definition has a good logic comparing with the usual meaning of the term "progressive" in music, and what is even more important, it doesn't have the weak points as a definition based on styles. Weak points coming from in my opinion the fact that the non mainstream rock music is still more eclectic and it's still more difficult to distinct the original main styles in it - which I think will continue in the future.
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 10 2010 at 04:16
What these preliminary considerations are concerned, I'd call green the 'normative' approach and blue a 'taxonomic' (also descriptive) approach. It should be obvious that a definition should aim at describing the term in question as objectively and encompassing as possible. A normative approach to definition is absurd: "Prog is accepted to be Y but it should be X" The quest is not discovery of the essence of prog. It's undiscoverable and presupposes an 'out-of-mind' existence of prog that is independent of how individuals happen to form concepts. The aim is rather to generalize how the majority of people conceptualize prog. It should be clear the the current state of the definition is highly idealized in that it describes what prog typically is rather than applying to all instances of prog. There's no way around this, I think. It still has the form "prog is rock - and then some", and that's not ideal. Also, the phrase "incorporating distinctive elements" calls for some reconsideration. It leaves the reader with an impression of prog as something consisting of a bundle of elements which are (more or less) distinct. I think an instance of prog forms an integrated whole and not a bundle of adjacent elements. < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 10 2010 at 09:36
|
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints. As I wrote in my last post, this definition is OK with me now but we have to realize that, at least in my interpretation, it is so broad so it includes for instance the more experimenting blues based rock and industrial - which I'd say is not common in the prog world.
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 10 2010 at 20:18
|
Paravion – you make 3 points in your post that I’d like to respond to (although inverted in order). <… the phrase "incorporating distinctive elements" calls for some reconsideration. It leaves the reader with an impression of prog as something consisting of a bundle of elements which are (more or less) distinct. I think an instance of prog forms an integrated whole and not a bundle of adjacent elements.> I did not intend to imply that progressive rock does not form an integrated whole… Neither did I intend to imply that it always must form an integrated whole. The extent to which artists even thought in terms of synthesis was not intended as a consideration. It was my use of the word “element” which contributed to this unintended implication. I am hoping the word “characteristic” will be more precise. What do you think? Since I’m making a change, I’ll also “fine-tune” for something else that has been bothering me. The definition inadvertently required more than one characteristic of the rock genre to be incorporated into a “non-rock” composition. This was unintended. One distinctive element can be adequate. Progressive Rock: Music either springing from or incorporating at least one distinctive characteristic of the rock genre while expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the genre. <It still has the form "prog is rock - and then some", and that's not ideal. > I want to clarify that I did not say that all “prog is rock” that simply appends something extra. I said that “progressive rock” either is rooted in the rock genre by its very nature while also expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the genre....
...or that "progressive rock" is music which was not rooted in the rock genre but which incorporated some characteristic from the rock genre resulting in music that expands beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the genre.
The manner in which one accomplishes this end is not specified. One could approach it by taking traditional rock music and then appending something else to it - of course. But that approach is certainly not the only one allowed by the definition.
I may be misunderstanding your point when you say “prog is rock and then some”. But the definition does not even require all progressive rock to "be rock". It was important to me to specify that some “progressive rock” music could be fundamentally “non-rock” and remain “non-rock”. Through simply incorporating characteristics (or now even 1 distinctive characteristic) of the rock genre, this “non-rock” music can still quality as “progressive rock”. Now is probably as good a time as any to remind everyone that I am not seeking to define “prog”. Nor am I seeking to define “progressive music”. I am only attempting to craft a utilitarian definition for “progressive rock”. Certainly these three terms intersect but I don’t believe they are identical. In general discussion, I have witnessed patterns of distinct usage for “prog” versus “progressive music” versus “progressive rock”. I’d rather these differences – and even the idea of whether one believes they exist or not – to be explored in a different post. Let’s not explore that topic here please! Suffice it to say that I personally believe there is a subtle distinction and that I am therefore not seeking to define “prog”. (I realize that “prog” is easier to say and to type but I wanted to clarify my intention.) None of that is to deny that I believe the general notion of “rock music which is unique because it has somehow progressed beyond the boundaries of regular normal everyday rock music” was indeed the intuitive foundation upon which the general public’s understanding of the term “progressive rock” rested during its earliest usage. Furthermore, I am suggesting that to a large extent, these two words continue to make their individual contributions, informing hearers about the most basic foundation of the term’s meaning even today. <It should be clear the the current state of the definition is highly idealized in that it describes what prog typically is rather than applying to all instances of prog. There's no way around this, I think.> Like you said, I don’t think there is any way around this so I don’t want to belabor the point. Even so, I’m genuinely interested in specific examples of songs (or pieces of music) which you feel are generally considered “progressive rock” but which would get excluded from that designation on the basis of this definition’s description. I currently am of the persuasion that a very minimal percentage of the music that is generally considered “progressive rock” is actually excluded by this definition. But, hey, I could be wrong! Any examples that you can share would be appreciated. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 10 2010 at 20:33
Good point David! As you also mentioned, experimental rock is included in this definition of "progressive rock". I actually see this as a strength in that it allows room for "progressive rock" to breathe and grow and evolve well into the 21st Century rather than confining it to specified sets of characteristics, historical circimstances or sub-genres. This definition allows "progressive rock" to continue "progressing" without requiring that it do so.
I tend to think any definition that requires "progressive rock" to "progress" will leave out too much music that is generally considered as "progressive rock". A definition that requires "progressive rock" to remain within its historical framework is too limiting - violating the very spirit from which the concept arose. And so I'm suggesting this definition as my attempt to allow "the best of both worlds" (or the worst in some cases some might say I guess...)
I'll go ahead and open the semantic "can of worms" by admitting that I believe the common usage of the term "prog" implies a more historical approach with specified characteristics and history. This explains why I'm not trying to apply this definition to "prog". I'm not sure how well this definition actually "works" for the general usage of the term "prog". ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 11 2010 at 09:34
|
Progpositivity, I'm not questioning
your intentions – I know what you mean and the implications I read
out of your definition are quite polemic. Though I'd maintain that
the choice of words and the 'internal' logic of the phrases have the
risk of giving an impression that prog is a kind of rock, because, as
you write “progressive
rock” either is rooted in the rock genre by its very nature while
also expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and
constraints of the genre....” at
least suggests a strong link between rock and prog. This is obvious,
given the wordy logic of term 'progressive rock', which certainly
suggests the same thing. (That's why I prefer the more abstract term
'prog') The “prog is rock – and then some” reading of your
definition is inaccurate, but it follows from a 'logic' that says if
prog shares feautres with rock, then prog is – more or less –
also a kind of rock. I realize that's not what you mean, but at least
to some it has the risk of communicating such an understanding.
To further explicate my views on this matter, I'd like to turn to the issue of categorization and propose prog as a radially structured category:
Figure one is a rough attempt at illustrating a proposal for a different approach to categorization. It's inspired by linguist/cognitive scientist George Lakoff – you can read more about radial categories and categorization in general in Lakoff's “Women fire and dangerous things – what categories reveal about the mind.” (University of Chicago press: 1987). To accept prog as a radial category has a series of implications, the most important are: a) Category membership (whether something is prog or not) is not a question of either/or – but a question of more or less. b) Category membership is not determined by discovery of necessary and sufficient conditions or shared features but solely on the basis of degree determined by 'goodness of example' ratings. The circles and numbers in the figure are taken to represent a center/periphery scale. The positions of the albums roughly (as in not thoroughly considered) reflect how central or peripheral I consider them relative to a prototypical understanding of prog (for example, “Tales from topographic oceans” is judged a 'very good example of the category prog'). It's simply a matter of asking yourself to what extend an album is central to a prototype. In this kind of category-establishment, you ask your informants (test-persons) to determine 'goodness of example' on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is 'very good example' and 7 is 'not a good example of [category]'. This has been done with the category furniture, and it showed that 'telephone' (6.80) is not a very good example of furniture, 'chair' (1.20) is a very good example and 'magazine rack' (3.40) is somewhere in the middle.* This may seem bizarre, but it severely challenges the classical view of categorization according to which something either is – or is not – a piece of furniture and a question to what extend something is a piece furniture is thus irrelevant. A circle has both a vertical and horizontal dimension. The albums, in this case, are arranged randomly with respects to these dimensions, but one could imagine some principles of organization that utilize this multi-dimensional feature of the figure. Following Rosch's prototype theory of categorization, prog, as a radial category, has a prototypical center that is taken to be independent; it has a cognitive status of it's own and doesn't occupy a place in a taxonomy. It follows that there are no certain features (elements, characteristics etc.) that an instance of prog has to have in order to be prog. To accept prog as a radial category requires you to abandon an idea of prog as a matter of either/or based on existence/non-existence of features and to accept that all music potentially is prog to some degree. If an instance of music has an average rating of 7, it follows that it's a very bad example of prog, not that it just isn't prog. This may seem very controversial.
Figure 2 illustrates roughly what I mean by prog being independent. Each of the five circles are taken to be representations of the radially structured categories 'rock', 'jazz', 'classical', 'folk' and 'prog' - from prog's point of view, so to speak. It captures how prog relates to other music categories, while still having an independent status as category (the center of the inner circle). All this leads me to one fundamental objection to your definition: it still has taxonomical traits in that it presents prog as something defined in terms of rock. I'd like to be more helpful in reaching a sufficient definition, but I'm not comfortable playing the role of a definer. I think characteristic is slightly better than element, but “Music either springing from or incorporating at least one distinctive characteristic of the rock genre while expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the genre” directs attention to a particular entity, namely a seemingly required minimum of at least one distinctive feature/element/characteristic of rock. That's somewhat misleading. I'd propose more tentativeness and awareness of prog as a radial category, and I carefully propose something along these lines: “prog is a genre of music which typically incorporates styles from other domains of music in an attempt to expand beyond the musical limitations of those domains” I'm not satisfied with this defintion, it's vague and imprecise and presupposes that other music styles have limitations. I'd still maintain that prog, really, is undefinable. Just like language is undefinable in linguistics. _____________________________________ *Rosch, Eleanor (1975): Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General 104: 192-233 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 11 2010 at 19:11
|
Hi,
Paravision ... that is fantastic ... very well done and said. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 11 2010 at 19:24
|
Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints.
A big, practical question is whether such a broad definition will be accepted and used. Here, I'm thinking at the fans and musicians of both "the old sub-genres" and "the new ones". I'll guess, it won't be easy as it's in my opinion to a large degree a question of identity which again is much about being different and exclude "the other ones". Then, it's of course a question of what kind of music one like and dislike and in this matter, industrial and experimental for instance are quite different from traditional prog. What we would need, I'll guess, is that some big, or at least smaller, prog sites start to include "the new sub-genres".
To Paravion: I distinguish between progressive rock and progressive music. What you suggest is a definition for the latter one while we are discussing a definition for the former one. This assessment is though only based on sporadic reading of your last post as it was too long for me to read and analyze - but your Fig. 2 should say it all.
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 12 2010 at 07:45
Thanks. It's a highly experimental and preliminary suggestion - it has many loose ends and a series of not completely thought through implications.
Well, I'd argue that a distinction between progressive music and progressive rock isn't necessary, and that the category 'prog' contains both. Also, I'm not defining anything - I was demonstration a method of categorization which differs from a taxonomically inspired type of categorization with focus on features and subcategorization.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 12 2010 at 12:08
|
Paravion's second diagram more or less represents what prog was like in the 70s. As I have said earlier in this thread, it is not very difficult to observe what is and what is not prog in 70s albums but thereafter, the picture gets a little confused. Actually, not even thereafter...Rush is already a "rock plus" kind of prog rock band in the 70s in the same way as Dream Theater is a "metal plus" band in the 90s. The rock/metal (as applicable) base is central to their music and no matter how far they venture, they are never too far away from a hard rocking riff. That doesn't seem to be the case with say Gentle Giant or even Genesis for that matter. Both bands have rock elements but it cannot be said that they have written a rock song in essence with additional sophisticated touches. Rather, as Paravion's diagram brings it out beautifully, it is an organic and highly individualistic byproduct of music that draws from varied influences. I think the reason progpositivity has mentioned rock in his definition is because his definition, as it stands, would become too inclusive if that word were omitted. It would then be construed to include any kind of sophisticated music. Your - Paravion - diagram describes prog more eloquently than words can, because I honestly confess I don't know how to articulate a definition out of what is essentially a compositional approach.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 12 2010 at 15:37
And I second that notion!
However, in a consumerist society, I'm not sure most people can find anything (like we did!) without it having a label.
As much as I don't like it either, I would prefer to separate Caravan from Dream Theater. Both progressive, yet different. I would be more inclined to drop the "prog" thing altogether and start separating things a bit better via their sound/style, which could be metal, folk, eccentric, rio, zheul and so forth so that in the end we have a better idea of what the music is like. As it is right now, there is a major confusion between "progressive" and "prog" and everyone uses the terms in every conceivable way possible ... except describe a band properly!
But I imagine that if you ever walked into NY's Tower Records or Rasputin's way back when ... you went crazy trying to find anything ... and probably left blown away. I can relate to that ... I did the first time and had to come back with a written list to make sure I could stay in one piece, or spot and actually look/find anything. I don't think that this is visible today at all ... as it was then. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 12 2010 at 16:35
|
<Paravion "Well, I'd argue that a distinction between progressive music and progressive rock isn't necessary">
This certainly does help explain your reservations about "rock" being included in the definition. You don't really see any utility in the word "rock" being included in the term itself. We clearly look at this differently. Sometime later, i'd like to dig a little deeper into your approach to defining what you call "prog". This concept you are describing best fits what I call "progressive music". I think we have some common ground there.
For now, however, I like to explain why I disagree with the notion that "a distinction between progressive music and progressive rock isn't necessary".
To say that a distinction between progressive music and progressive rock isn't necessary is to imply that there is no usefulness to having a distinction between the two concepts. But I strongly believe that the term "progressive rock" is very useful for conveying a distinctive meaning that is different from "progressive music".
We are "proggers" so we tend to think from a progressive rock frame of reference. But let's remember that I'm speaking in terms of the populace at large. The term "progressive music" is used much more widely than "progressive rock".
Examples:
Ex #1 Progressive dance music
I also saw a 70's album (which I did not buy) describing itself as some kind of "progressive dance" music. I don't doubt that it had something new and different to the 70's dance music listener - but (and I realize I'm forming a decision based upon the album cover) it looked quite disco-ish. I'm quite certain that muisc is not something that would be considered "progressive rock" to most people who use the term.
Ex #2 Progressive hip hop music
I currently see music described as "progressive hip hop music". I don't deny that such a term could be useful to fans of hip hop music. And I'm not denying that this form of hip hop music may be fresh and exciting to the listeners. But I'm quite certain that this music is not something that would be considered "progressive rock" by most speakers. When I'm speaking with these hip hop music fans, use of the term "progressive music" conveys a very different superset of styles than to say "progressive rock".
Ex #3 Progressive jazz music
Just recently, I picked up a jazz album recorded in the 1960's in which the composers sought to integrate symphonic instruments and forms. It will certainly be progressive jazz and progressive music. I look forward to listening to it. But I still have reservations as to whether the music will be something most people would be comfortable describing as "progressive rock". Of the 3 examples, this is the one that would be most likely to intersect with "progressive rock" and/or "prog". To rockers and progrockers, the terms "progressive rock" and "progressive music" may seem interchangable. But as you can see, to the general speaker and hearer, "progressive rock" and "progressive music" do not mean exactly the same thing. When I am speaking with a hip hop music fan, it makes a big difference to them whether I say "progressive rock" or whether I say "progressive music". The entire concept that is communicated differs quite radically.
I can - of course - say "progressive music" in a discussion. But I need to be aware of who is hearing me and how they will interpret that term. I need to be aware of the fact that "progressive music" is a more "wide open" concept than "progressive rock".
"Progressive" is such a relative adjective that at some point it begs the question "progressive relative to what" and/or "progressing from where as a starting point?"
------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 12 2010 at 17:08
|
Paravion wrote:
"...presupposes that other music styles have limitations. I'd still maintain that prog, really, is undefinable. Just like language is undefinable in linguistics." and "I'm not defining anything".
This explains a lot regarding our different approaches on this thread. Mine is born out of a very pragmatic desire. Yours is more theoretical. To say that all music is prog just some to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree is an interesting observation. I don't agree that all music is "progressive rock" - but I can see some usefulness of such and approach for expanding the scope and ensuring that nothing gets left out, this does not preclude the usefulness of other approaches to defining the word, however. One of the classic examples used to support this type of methodology is the concept of "mother". Such an approach allows for gradations of people to be "more motherly" and "less motherly".
Even so, it is still very useful to have some definitions that are framed traditionally.
For example. Mother = a female parent.
Mother = a term of address for a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent.
Mother = an old or elderly woman
Mother = source, origin <ex: necessity is the mother of invention>
So it is that while I see some usefulness in the radial concept, that still does not negate the usefulness of a more traditional definition for "progressive rock". My main concerns are expedience and clarity. Explaining the radial concept to a mildly interested party hardly seems to be the most effective way to communicate the meaning of "progressive rock".
In the end, if there is no definition for "progressive rock", you are perhaps just as happy as (or even happier than) if there is one. For my purposes, however, in the end, I still believe there must be a definition that is useful, if somewhat less than 100% precise. I am fully aware that none of the dictionary definitions of the word "mother" above independently capture 100% of the essense and usage of the word. Even their combined efforts fall short of that. A dictionary will probably supply 7 to 10 or more definitions for this word.
Now, I do believe we can craft a dictionary styled definition that is not fraught with utter ambiguity and messiness - but I'm OK with something that merely qualifies as legitimately functional or useful. And so, if I come up with a definition that is effective in quickly conveying to a wide general audience a reasonably accurate sense of what people usually mean when they say "progressive rock", then I will consider this to have been a successful venture. I'll certainly be glad to consider your suggestion of adding moderating words like "often" to the definition. As you said, they introduce a lot of ambiguity. In a cost/benefit analysis, that cost is clear to me. The extent of the benefit is perhaps not entirely clear to me yet. How often does "progressive rock" music get excluded from such a designation on the basis of the description which I have provided? If it not frequent at all, then the cost of the ambiguity may be higher than the benefit of the inclusion.
Do you think there is very much music generally considered to be "progressive rock" that does not fit within the constraints of the definition I've provided? If so, please share examples.
Progressive Rock: Music either springing from or incorporating one or more distinctive characteristics of the rock genre while expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the genre. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 14 2010 at 07:10
|
About progressive music and progressive rock. I realize they have different meanings and that one can utilize this semantic difference in distinguishing between progressive rock and progressive music. The thing is, the way I see it, that this dependency relation that is presumed to hold between word meaning and a music category doesn't actually hold. When I was working in radio, a digital recording device was always named a "tape recorder" even though tapes haven't been used for years. It is just what they are called. I introduce 'prog' as a somewhat arbitrary category-label. It's not a word that means something and thus it's not a term that combines 'progressive music' and 'progressive rock' in any sense where word meaning and category-status are in a one-to-one dependency relation. More on prog as a radial category. "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" This is essentially true and my fundamental conviction. For me, 'prog' only has conceptual status and to accept it as a radial category challenges very much any assumption that words somehow can describe music. Radial categories are mind-internal, they are not descriptions or reflections of an objective 'out there in the world' status of a category. They inform of how the mind structures categories and information about the categories themselves is secondary and depends solely on how the mind forms and structures categories. I proposed prog as a radial category where instances of music are centered around a prototype as more or less central or peripheral. Of course, many people haven't any prototypical understanding of prog. When we as experiencers get subjected to an instance of music, e.g. the album "Tales from topographic oceans", we (many of us) ask ourselves questions like "what kind of music is this?". Prog has category status in my mind, and I would, just like Al, judge Tales from topographic oceans a very good example of prog. Many have no idea of prog and would perhaps categorize Tales relative to a rock domain as an album which isn't a very good example prototypical rock, like Bob. These are equally 'correct' classifications spawned by different conceptual systems. Figure three captures this point.
What seems to be the issue then, is to introduce prog as a category into the mind of people by means of a definition that in general terms captures what prog typically is. This category-introduction, I think, is done best by providing examples more than using words. I got to know about prog by listening to records that generally were judged good examples of prog, not by reading any definition. Note, radial categories are structured with respects to more than a central/peripheral scale. They are also structured according to a notion of chaining which captures how central members are linked to other members and so on.
On definition I'm not really interested in defining prog and I turn (here and in my last post) exclusively to theoretical issues of categorization which I find very important in reaching, not so much a definition, but rather an understanding of the cognitive status of categories which ideally should play a role in a definition - even though I judge it rather difficult. All things considered, it's a matter of a lot of things - including points of views. As stated earlier in this discussion, I recognize certain benefits of a (kind-of) taxonomic approach, most importantly the functionality and usability of seemingly fixed categories where members share properties and are categorized and sub-categorized accordingly. It's rational - and in western thinking it's an ancient and a deeply ingrained way of making sense of experience - though not cognitively adequate, and thus, I'd maintain, somewhat delusional.
Final words Figure 4 captures in an intended humorous and exaggerated way, how I perceive our different outlooks which has spawned this quite interesting discussion. I can't spend more time on figures and explicating theoretical points of view. I'm currently working on a paper in linguistics which has to be finished shortly, so I'll retreat from this thread. Thank you for an interesting discussion! |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 14 2010 at 17:53
|
Hi guys,
I'd like to tell you that I'm now discussing my article and the subject "How to define and classify progressive rock?" at RateYourMusic and I have also mentioned as alternative the definition
Progressive Rock: Music either springing from or incorporating one or more distinctive characteristics of the rock genre while expanding beyond the traditional musical limitations and constraints of the genre. It is going to be interesting to see their reaction, not least as many or maybe most of them are not prog fans but some according to this definition maybe future prog fans. - And I use "prog" as short for progressive rock.
Otherwise, I can see that you certainly have some discussions and get wide around. It also looks like you get more and more clarified about the different approaches and differences altogether.
Paravions graphic presentation of his understanding of music looks interesting but I ain't going to try to comment it further.
Cheers
David |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 15:44
|
Paravon: <I'm not really interested in defining prog> And yet the name of this thread is "seeking a more elegant definition for prog" - which explains a lot. We indeed are working toward different ends. From the beginning, my stated goal has been to create a functional dictionary styled definition which would: a) be far less complicated than most encyclopedia styled approaches and b) thus be useful for communicating quickly with a very wide audience. I often get the impression that you take exception to the entire enterprise of crafting dictionary styled definitions for progressive rock. It often sounds like you are saying that nothing short of a center–periphery schema can be helpful or meaningful to explain the concept of "progressive rock". This is what I take exception to - and if I have fundamentally misunderstood you in this regard, please accept my apologies.
I actually think radial categorization is an interesting and promising approach to usage of the term you call "prog", and one which warrants a separate post of its own. I certainly hope I have not "come across" fundamentally opposed to such an approach. My point is that I don't believe it nullifies the usefulness of a more traditional western approach to creating "dictionary styled" definitions. The dictionary has multiple definitions for words. None of them includes every possible valid use of the term in question. For example, most dictionaries' primary definition for the word mother will focus on the concept of "a female parent". This definition does not cover 100% of the usage for the word. Dictionaries will then proceed to give another 4 to 9 definitions for additional usage. Even the combined efforts of those definitions will not cover 100% of the valid usages for the word "mother". A radial approach can be very useful for decsribing how language moves, breathes and evolves in usage. Even so, the first few dictionary definitions of the word "mother" serve a valid purpose. They are generally straightforward and informative to a wide audience. It is precisely this type of definition for progressive rock which I am seeking to create. <As stated earlier in this discussion, I recognize certain benefits of a (kind-of) taxonomic approach, most importantly the functionality and usability of seemingly fixed categories where members share properties and are categorized and sub-categorized accordingly. It's rational - and in western thinking it's an ancient and a deeply ingrained way of making sense of experience> My network connection is not allowing me to view your attached graphic. I look forward to seeing it when I log in from my personal PC. Perhaps we aren't so far apart as it would appear. <though not cognitively adequate, and thus, I'd maintain, somewhat delusional.> The key question here is "adequate" to achieve what purpose? Adequate to fully and completely accurately describe the entirety of the term? Or adequate "to provide a wide audience a good general idea of 'what it is all about"? I have no doubt you are alluding to something closer to the former than the latter. But I am looking more toward the latter. Indeed, if we are looking at the latter purpose, not only would I call it adequate, I'd go as far as to say that it is actually better suited to accomplish such an aim.
I must admit that I don't consider my definition particularly "taxonomic" because it does not dedicate much time and attention to creating, naming and defining various classifications and sub-classifications like many definitions of progressive rock tend to do. Thinking radially, in at least one key respect, my definition is far less "taxonomic" than many other definitions of progressive rock. ;-)
But I am now understanding that you are using the word "taxonomic" to describe any approach that relies upon seemingly discrete categories with specific instances of music either being "included in" or "excluded from" those categories. In that regard, I can see where my definition would indeed qualify as "taxonomic". As such, it shares inherent limitations with all the other definitions of progressive rock which employ such an approach.
I maintain , however, that this approach is not delusional to whatever extent it is effectively used for pragmatic purposes. It could, however, be delusional to the extent one tried to behave as though it was adequate to accurately and fully describe 100% of the usage of the term. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 16:43
Hi David!
I look forward to hearing about the feedback you get - especially if any of it comes from people were not already familiar with progressive rock!
I'm hoping the definition can be a nice little "starter" to get the ball rolling - to get them interested in digging deeper into learning more about the various sub-genres! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 17:36
|
Well, I'm afraid, the discussions in RYM are finished and there were only two super short comments which pointed out that the definition included psychedelic, post-rock and experimental. I can't say how it was received.
What I can tell, on the basis of my short own experience though, is that RYM's discussion forum is almost enirely another world than PA's. People talk very much out of the topic, joke really roughly with each other and there come all the time new people in "the thread" just to make a joke or speak about something else than the topic. On the other hand, they are very good at stuff like that, can speak in a very impressive, artistic way and be very funny.
Here's a sample which I, OK, find as the best one
http://rateyourmusic.com/~WalterDigsTunes - http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?goto=2995532 - :
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 18:00
|
Crap that doesn't suck.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 22:09
|
<When I was working in radio, a digital recording device was always named a "tape recorder" even though tapes haven't been used for years. It is just what they are called.>
It depends on who the audience is and what "common usage" is.
For example, if I tell my son that I am bringing home a "tape recorder" he would get all interested in finding out whether it was reel-to-reel, cassette or mini-cassette. If I then bring home a digital hand-held recorder, he would be disappointed and say, something to the effect of "I thought you said you picked up a tape recorder".
So this becomes an issue of common usage. I submit that in common usage to say to someone that music is "progressive" can convey a different message than to say it is "progressive rock". If they convey different meanings, then it is worth being aware of this fact. It is valuable to make a distinction between the two.
<"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" . This is essentially true and my fundamental conviction. For me, 'prog' only has conceptual status and to accept it as a radial category challenges very much any assumption that words somehow can describe music.>
Even so, I find it interesting how functionally well a short descriptive definition can convey a meaning that accurately depicts over 99% of progressive rock - and as such is useful for those instances when one - in fact - does wish to talk about music.
<What seems to be the issue then, is to introduce prog as a category into the mind of people...done best by providing examples more than using words.>
I don't disagree that this can be a very effective way to educate people about progressive rock.
It can still leave some conceptual "holes" in their understanding however. For example, one may be left with questions as to why one piece of music was considered progressive rock in the 1960's when it sounds so "normal" to them as they listen to it with "today's ears" and judge it by today's standards. A more conceptual understanding - one that includes the idea of the music progressing beyond the norms and limitations of rock music "at that particular point in time" rather than only an example based understanding from simply hearing progressive rock songs will help answer such questions.
In the end, on a discussion board, words are our communication tools. On a discussion list in a thread where the stated goal is to craft a definition for a term, we are going to use words to create our definition.
<Figure 4 captures in an intended humorous and exaggerated way, how I perceive our different outlooks which has spawned this quite interesting discussion. I can't spend more time on figures and explicating theoretical points of view. I'm currently working on a paper in linguistics which has to be finished shortly, so I'll retreat from this thread. Thank you for an interesting discussion!>
I just saw Figure 4. That is too funny! It certainly doesn't do justice to the clarity of your concept - although it does depict the complexity of inter-connectedness of various pieces of music based upon a plethora of multiple simultanous perceptions.
I think both approaches can be useful. And if I've read your recent post correctly, I think you do as well.
You have given me much to think about! Thanks for your time and for the thought provoking discussion! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 22:23
|
Thanks for the feedback David!
<only two super short comments which pointed out that the definition included psychedelic, post-rock and experimental.>
Yes. There is some experimental classical and other general experimental music that wouldn't be included. But it certainly does include experimental rock and any experimental music that incorporates characteristics of rock music.
It also includes Math Rock. It is interesting that - pragmatically speaking - these are included at PA as well. Math Rock and Post-Rock are quite different to me even though they are lumped together into one category here at PA - but I'm glad they are included.
To exclude post-rock and math rock from qualifying as "progressive rock" relegates "progressive rock" to a backwards looking stagnant viewpoint - which I think violates the concept from which the term was born.
Besides remaining true to the conceptual basis from which the term was born, there is an added benefit to framing the definition in such a 'wide open' manner.
By including music that has roots in rock - or incorporates elements of rock music... and expands beyond the traditional boundaries of rock, we preserve the relevance of the progressive rock genre designation for future generations of musicians and music listeners.
As a young musician seeking to create music more creative than "normal rock", or as a young music listener seeking to hear music more creative than "normal rock", I am much more interested in learning about pioneers from the 1960's and 1970's if I see these artists as forefathers of a genre designation that I share with them - or if I at least perceive the points of commonality clearly. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 05:23
|
I admit to off-topicness and partial irrelevancy by not wanting to address the issue of the definition as such but rather circling around in theoretical spheres. You asked a concrete question that I somehow overlooked and would like to answer.
Progressive
Rock:
Music either springing from or incorporating one or more distinctive
characteristics of the rock genre while expanding beyond the
traditional musical limitations and constraints of the It's difficult for me to accept the phrase “Music springing
from or incorporating one or more distinctive characteristics of the
rock genre” Which directs attention to a minimum of at least one
characteristic of rock that instances of prog have to share. What
about purely acoustic music springing from a folk domain rather
than a rock domain and which accordingly is more likely to be conceptualized
relative to a folk domain? e.g. 'The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter'
by the Incredible String Band? I have a hard time pointing at the
required characteristic of rock. It's classified as prog-folk on this
site (members include Jethro Tull). The term (and the logic of PA
organization) suggests a place in both a prog taxonomy (where rock is
a mother-node) and a place in a folk taxonomy (where rock isn't
necessarily a characteristic). This is highly inadequate and
unnecessarily complicated.
In accordance with my conceptualist outlook I suggest classification relative to the radially structured categories (or, more loosely, domains) diagrammed in the circles. This approach accounts for the huge difference between Incredible String Band and Jethro Tull which the taxonomic approach fails to do. (Note, the diagram is partial and does not suggest that the domains represented are the only domains that play a role in the classification/conceptualization and the positions and interactions are not fixed) |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 10:39
|
Thanks for the example! I've heard ISB music in which I have perceived a relation back to the rock music idiom (speaking of idiom in the way of aggregating characteristics of a music genre). But I'm unfamiliar with the specific song ''The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter' by the Incredible String Band
- so I look forward to checking it out.
Sometimes a band gets characterized as a progressive rock band based upon a signifigant subset of their work. The rest of their songs get "swept into" the progressive rock association as a result. I have no idea whether this is the case with ISB or with that specific song though.
This example will be helpful to me for testing the veracity of the pragmatic dictionary-styled definition of progressive rock that I've been "fine tuning"!
Drifting off-topic with you - because your posts are just too thoughtful and interesting to resist!
You bring up a good point in that while the descriptive (taxonomic) approach is IMO very useful for verbalizing and communication general understandings about aggregates based upon a very limited number of shared characteristics, it usually clarifies one's focus to a single primary frame of reference or at the most a duality of frames of reference. As useful as I would claim such descriptive sub-genre names can be, they are also inherently limited.
To step outside of prog for a moment, a band can be "Southern Rock" while also being a blues based like Lynyrd Skynyrd or more pop/rock based like 38 Special. For example, 38 Special had some very high-profile songs that had more in common with Rick Springfield and Juice Newton musically speaking than they did with their "Southern Rock" co-members. Juice Newton ostensibly was a country pop-rock crossover and some characteristics of her music will firmly cement her relationship to the country genre. Rick Springfield was a soap opera heart-throb pop-rock crossover. These examples may seem worlds apart but their hit songs share a very palpable electric guitar riff based "top 40" songwriting template (which I am not seeking to denigrate - merely to identify). Furthermore, a southern rock band could have a female vocalist which would place them into a female lead vocalist rock category (which may sound like an arbitrary distinction but one to which I can attest there was a genuine level of interest as a separate category in people's minds at least back in the days of Pat Benatar, The Pretenders, The Motels, Missing Persons, etc. Female lead vocalists are now so common in rock, most people are probably "beyond" thinking in those terms).
I don't think I've done a very good job of providing examples off the top of my head. That is one unfortunate limitation of a "discussion board". Perhaps I should collect my thoughts and come back to give better examples.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that we are constantly coming across pieces of music which exemplify characteristics from many more than 2 categories. Into which of the competing "buckets" shall we put them whenever we insist upon them "being somewhere"? To whatever extent they "are anywhere", I suggest that they are actually simultaneously sitting in multiple buckets to different various degrees.
Then - of course - we have *bands* composing and performing many different pieces of music many of which are quite different from one another. But we have a desire for - and a usefulness for - placing bands into stylistic genre buckets as well! Into which of the competing "buckets" shall we put bands whenever we insist upon them "being somewhere"? To whatever extent they "are anywhere", I suggest that they are actually simultaneously sitting in multiple buckets to different various degrees. Finally a point for which I have a good (extreme) example. King Crimson! But in reality, this same limitation affects almost all band genre designations.
I like your Venn diagram. I've often thought that even very complex Venn diagrams can be inadequate for depicting all possibilities of shared characteristics based on different aggregations of perception. Usually one "view" will exclude many other sets of variables in order to avoid the picture becoming so convoluted as to become useless.
Of course, as you know, this post is looking to "fine-tune" a descriptive approach using words to create a definition for progressive rock capable of taking someone from "ground zero" to a fundamental basic understanding that encompasses over 98% of what is commonly considered progressive rock. I only said that in hopes of keeping the conversation on this thread at least minimally tethered to its stated purpose. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Lark the Starless
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 10:45
|
You guys are just analyzing WAY too much
Just listen to and enjoy the music ------------- 
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 13:34
|
I know this is very anti-intellectual of me but ever since I was a young child I’ve loved comic books and serial adventure TV shows like “Dr. Who”. Comic books would often strain to somehow weave a “recap” of previous sub-plotlines into someone’s conversation. The TV shows were much more direct. For example, the TV show “LOST” would simply start by saying “Previously on ‘LOST’” before launching into a “recap”. I'll follow in the latter tradition to recap where we are in our elusive quest for simplified dictionary styled definitions of "progressive rock".
Previously on ProgLOST… We have two definitions for Progressive Rock which are rather rock-centric.
1) "Progressive Rock": a term typically used to describe music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints. Or if we are particularly comfortable with the understanding that no single definition captures 100% of the usages of a term, for ease of use we could boil it down to…
2) Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints. And we have a 3rd approach which - albeit slightly off-topic - is fascinating and certainly worthy of note nonetheless. (Thanks Paravon! I hope I don't fundamentally misunderstand or mis-state regarding yoru thoughts below...)
It starts with a broad designation we are calling "prog". This designation is a Radial category that is mind-internal with instances of music centered around a group of prototypes that are more or less central and others which are more or less peripheral. These prototypes are best learned by having people actually listen to the music. The human brain is so amazingly complex that it will tend to automatically perceive the many characteristics of the prototypical instances to "make sense" of them in relation to one another, setting the stage for further comparative analysis of future instances of music.
While this approach is not really interested in defining prog per se, it could perhaps be willing to submit the following for pragmatic usage: 3) Prog is a genre of music which typically incorporates styles from other domains of music in an attempt to expand beyond the musical limitations of those domains.
My current “homework assignment” is to check out the song 'The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter' by the Incredible String Band! I do believe that a piece of music can simultaneously be both or neither Progressive Folk and Progressive Rock – even while that same piece of music can simultaneously be classified with other designations as well depending upon the point of view of the one doing the categorization at any given moment. My focus will – of course – be primarily concerned with a viewpoint relative to progressive rock. In particular, I'm interested in the limitations imposed by the various definitions of progressive rock submitted above although that is not the only consideration. And Lark the Starless, don’t worry. I will also take some time to just enjoy the music without worrying about classifications! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 14:31
|
^ That's a great summary! "The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter" is an album from 1968. Often considered the mother of so-called acid-folk. Not homework - but everybody should listen to it - everyday.
But - what kind of music would that be? I'm currently listening to the record "The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators" . The sleeve notes are quite interesting: "Since Aristotle, man has organized knowledge vertically in separate and unrelated groups---Science, Religion, Sex, Relaxation, Work etc. The main emphasis in his language, his system of storing knowledge, has been on the identification of objects rather than on the relationships between objects. He is now forced to use his tools of reasoning separately and for one situation at a time. Had man been able to see past this hypnotic way of thinking, to distrust it (as did Einstein), and to resystematize his knowledge so that it would all be related horizontally, he would now enjoy the perfect sanity which comes from being able to deal with his life in its entirety. Recently, it has become possible for man to chemically alter his point of view (that is, his own basic relation with the outside world which determines how he stores his information). He then can restructure his thinking and change his language so that his thoughts bear more relation to his life and his problems, therefore approaching them more sanely. It's this quest for pure sanity that forms the basis of the songs on this album." "Elevators, 1966" Besides the "drugs=pure sanity" part this is surprisingly reminiscent of views and basic foundations in cognitive linguistics! Psychedelic grammar? Maybe I'll construe such in the future  |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 15:15
That's the problem ... and that term can change over night and your definition is worthless.
Music history has to be looked at from a higher perspective ... and the main issue I have with it all, is that in the end, I feel that the history is being ignored and we're trying to recreate the wheel ... BUT ... we're using the terms that were there before ... so convenient.
If you want to create something new, do not use "rock" ... and define something new, and do NOT compare it to rock, because most rock music, STILL, is thought of as quite inferior to most music, and specially popular music, not what is termed "classical music".
We're simply trying to justify some people that use jazz, rock, and other mediums to create something original ... but if you want to give them credit, the first reference is the artist, not "rock music" ... again, seeing it from a higher perspective.
Common usage, in general, are all fads and they die tomorrow ... so if you want to break the mold and help the music live longer, you can not simply associate it with the common usage ... you have to associate it with the history of the music, since the common usage is meaningless in the long run ... and no one will give a darn about it.
This board is a good example, when the younger fans don't like how, what, who says something about the music that might suggest their favorite band today doesn't fit!
Is that what you want?
That's like me saying that you need to read some Jane Austen, so I sound more literate, and you look at me and ... what's the category and what does it have to do with broccoli?
It doesn't work that way.
What works is letting the music stand up on its own, and we stop talking about it like it isn't music, or that we have to create a variation on the definition, so it fits the bands that you like ... that do not fit in with the originals that created this term ... and that's a different ball game, and I would almost suggest that we are all guilty of that to an extent.
But we have to be highly objective on this stuff ... and even I, do not think I am objective enough, although I do not write reviews based on preference at all. I write because the whole project and event stood out worst than a sore thumb! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: trackstoni
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 18:00
|
what the hell is going on in these pages ! there's no definition or equation to put progressive in it !! if there was a definition for progressivity in music , then we don't call it progressive music !
rock , blues , jazz , pop , even classical raised up , one way or another , between 1967 & 2010 , to say , our music must be this way ! and they did it their ways ! i really feel ungry when you devide our bands , artists , albums into groups ( prog related , canterbury , space rock , symphonic prog . , italian symphonic prog , german symphonic , or the best of all jazz fusion !!! ) from where did you get those terms !? it's a Progressive rock music , no matter what is your opinion , and you can ask Waters , Gilmour , Clapton , Di Meola , or Wilson , they'll give you the same answers ! ------------- Tracking Tracks of Rock |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 18:23
|
<and that term can change over night and your definition is worthless>
... and yet that is a risk I'm willing to face. Just don't ask me to sky-dive or tame lions! ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 19:00
|
<what the hell is going on in these pages...i really feel ungry when you devide our bands , artists , albums into groups...>
Greetings trackstoni! I see you have been a member since Feb of 2008 and have posted over 500 messages at PA. That is quite a tenure to precede such an emotional epiphany! I can only surmise that you have long ago already found a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance at least enough to continue enjoying the fellowship of hanging out with music fans who share many of your interests here at PA!
It actually sounds to me as though you may prefer prog as a radial category! Please see the 3rd approach below, contributed by Paravon. It is a very different approach!
Of course, I don't think you will ever "convert" prog fans away from the categories and sub-categories. This is a reflection of the identity of most prog fans and to some extent a reflection of humanity. We like to analyze and classify things. And we love to assign names to things. To a great extent, this is simply an extension of "who we are" and "what we do".
It may help to try not thinking of these categories as actual divisions. Think of them as descriptors that help people organize a very massive music collection in their mind.
Let's take cars as an example. If you were rich enough to own a fleet of 10,000 cars, you could park them in different parking lots based on size, shape, color, model, manufacturer, engine design, fuel delivery systems, and many other ways. This could make it easier for you to think about and remember characteristics of the many cars in your fleet. But that doesn't mean the yellow cars are fundamentally divided against the red cars anymore than the 6 cylander cars are divided against the 4 cylander cars. These provide a way of organizing the music in our minds. I hope that helps!
--------
So far, we have two definitions for Progressive Rock which are rather rock-centric.
1) "Progressive Rock": a term typically used to describe music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints. Or if we are particularly comfortable with the understanding that no single definition captures 100% of the usages of a term, for ease of use we could boil it down to…
2) Progressive Rock: Music springing from or incorporating distinctive elements of the rock genre while expanding beyond its traditional musical limitations and constraints. And we have a 3rd approach which - albeit slightly off-topic - is fascinating and certainly worthy of note nonetheless. (Thanks Paravon! I hope I don't fundamentally misunderstand or mis-state regarding yoru thoughts below...)
It starts with a broad designation we are calling "prog". This designation is a Radial category that is mind-internal with instances of music centered around a group of prototypes that are more or less central and others which are more or less peripheral. These prototypes are best learned by having people actually listen to the music. The human brain is so amazingly complex that it will tend to automatically perceive the many characteristics of the prototypical instances to "make sense" of them in relation to one another, setting the stage for further comparative analysis of future instances of music.
While this approach is not really interested in defining prog per se, it could perhaps be willing to submit the following for pragmatic usage: 3) Prog is a genre of music which typically incorporates styles from other domains of music in an attempt to expand beyond the musical limitations of those domains. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 20:11
I can say some more about my experience from RYM with relevance for the proposed definition and with connection to what I wrote in a previus comment. I've met some hostility against the term "progressive rock" and it is clearly my impression that this hostility against progressive rock as a hole is to certain degree widespread among RYM users, and not at least the young ones - which immediately might seem strangely. That is of course quite relevant as RYM is a site most popular by fans of indie rock/pop, alternative, experimental and other more or less non-mainstream rock styles.
|