But, something that friend of mine said stuck with me, something he said about progressive music. Taking the term as an application to the song's form, he told me "Progressive music changes."

Obviously, there are many faucets that make a song progressive, most outlined very well all over this site. However, one which I have been curious about and looking for since that statement hit my ears has been the idea that songs within the progressive spectrum tend to meander and flow in different ways than were expressed by the beginning of the song.

For example: The song "Everyday" by Buddy Holly begins with a simple riff, ordinary time signature, and a sweet, upbeat feel. This feel never changes, the time and tempo never shift, and the riff is the staple of the entire song, all things flowing from it and nothing else.

The prog counter to this shall be, fittingly, Tool's "Vicarious:" Opening with a very post-metal ambient soundscape (in shifting signatures), it unfolds into a hammering riff (also in shifting signatures). This evolves into an entirely different riff and stable signatures and keys for the chorus, but when that's done for, the signatures go insane once more, delving into an entirely different section not echoed before. Throw in a breakdown not forshadowed by anything that came before it which culminates into a vibrant chant, and you get a piece of music which evolves and evolves and evolves again.

There are hundreds of other examples of this within prog, Dream Theater doing this in pretty much all of their songs, and if you're thinking more towards classics, Yes does this quite frequently as well.

It reminds a bit of a classical way of composing, stringing together multiple different but interlocking sections to form a complex piece, as seen in Holsinger's masterpiece, Liturgical Dances:

The point I am trying to get at here is, do others agree with this? Any counter examples or outliers? Differing points of view? I'd like to know. 

All change--or progressions--are not equal.

From my perspective, there were experimental people from the very beginning of Prog. King Crimson is one, Gong another, VDGG, Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, still others. Even Genesis had their Waiting Room escapade into orchestrating noise. 

However, In the punk era even the idea that you can do something by venturing out sonically was part of what was labeled "pretentious". Just write some songs people want to pogo to! Just write some songs about what people have in their lives. Just write songs. 

To me the avoidance of "pretension" is part of putting an artist in a box. If I think something's pretentious, I'll avoid listening to it. Maybe the artist can find some people who will think it's cream. And maybe that artist is just off in this work. Perhaps he or she will find a way to bring another element into it to loosen it up. 

This is an illustration of something: I like the various eras of King Crimson. I've always liked Fripp's work. But I think the disgust he has with the era of music he is closing out, because he "no longer feels it is relevant" places a little too much burden on the "relevance" of any of his music. I think it actually makes him a little more pretentious when it comes down to it. Nobody is going to materialize a ham sandwich in front of starving people with any combination of sound. There is a limited amount of importance or relevance that music can have in the big scheme of things. So to some degree losing the picture that you're producing something for people's enjoyment, is a part of lessening the pretension factor. And when you think that some people still enjoy the album Red, as much as I do, then giving those people something to listen to is part of that too.

Opeth are like The Fall, to borrow John Peel's quote "always different, always the same". There are aspects that change (the lineup - they're on their fifth bassist & guitarist, and third drummer; and sound - lack of growling, addition of keyboards, etc)

Pink Floyd changed from R&B to Psychedelic pop to Space Rock to avant garde experiments to stadium rock, and only the drummer is on every album.

As for not changing, that's a main quality of most non-prog bands - you wouldn't call The Ramones or The Pet Shop Boys or Lonnie Donegan prog, would you?

The OP referred to change within a piece of music, not along a band's career.

Yes, changes within one piece of music are one of the defining features of prog, no doubt about it.

Ironic then that later Genesis even named one of their songs after a traditional song structure - ABACAB - and then didn't stick to that structure with said song.

 

 

Without rules there'd be no "insistence" on such things as unusual time signatures, concepts, technical ability, unusual instrumentation, extended duration, and so on.  What is prog without all of those things?  Might as well be Doo-Wop or Disco, Reggae or Rhumba

ok but rules are made to be broken.

So you learn the rules then break them. That what's progressive imo.

 

I think you misunderstand the man and his music, and you might consider listening to his other side by himself or with Eno or other experimentalists.

 

What you don't see, is that the music means so much to him on a personal level, that you can't imagine ... and that each piece is a mere painting of his mind at this moment ... but you are not accepting that painting at all ... and instead say that the man is pretentious. I would question the nature of the comment itself, instead, btw, rather than criticise someone else for something he DID DO, and you didn't ... but you feel the need to COMMENT on his doing!

 

If there is some anger, and I don't think that his anger is that harsh or vindictive, unlike these types of comments about his nature appears to be, it is rather well founded ... to someone where concentration is important in a piece, it is his very foundation, but nooooo ... you interrupt him for an autograph ... or sto scream "rock'n'roll", and ignore the man on his trip ... and then you get upset that he got touchy with your interruption to his concentration!

 

The music business itself, is a well known rip off and has been so for years. Sadly, he did not see, understand, or was able to hear the rumblings about owning your own music and company in the mid 70's, in order to make sure you could gain from it ... but most artists at the time did NOT listen to the comments, and still sold out for a quick paycheck, and nothing after it!

 

It's a two-edged sword, any way you look at it ... you feel the need to concentrate, and get interrupted by emotional things that prevent you from concentrating ... and you are complaining about Robert?

 

The other part, about "change" ... is that ALL music, forever, has always been abut change ... and chord change, note change, or bs change is NOT what drove what we came to call "progressive" music ... but you continually ignore that and stick to a search for a lost chord in the music -- that you think defines "progressive" ... and that "change" is found in ALL music out there ... but you might not know that?

I don't think it's always true, and it's not necessarily correlated to if the music is progressive or not, but I do think progressive music in general has more room to take you on a journey.

Thanks for all the great replies, everybody! This is something I really enjoy in music, and I'm glad people on here responded to it 

Let it be known that I, too, love Buddy Holly, but a 20 minute rendition of something as simple as "Everyday" would get rather annoying.

Perhaps there is someone out there who enjoys prog but not the changes the song can undergo? I know that I, on occasion, get a bit peeved when a particular part of the song I really enjoyed is stuck between two other parts I don't quite enjoy as much, and I wonder why they didn't turn that awesome phrase into a whole different song.

How anyone could mean that description negatively is beyond me.

moshkito wrote:  ... to someone where concentration is important in a piece, it is his very foundation, but nooooo ... you interrupt him for an autograph ... or sto scream "rock'n'roll", and ignore the man on his trip ... and then you get upset that he got touchy with your interruption to his concentration

I've never met the man let alone, molested his concentration. 

Concentration doesn't have anything to do with it. I think he probably concentrated in his symphonic period and his trio period (Starless, Red), and the various parts of the Belew period. But the amount of concentration doesn't make them, in his mind "valid". If seriousness and concentration mattered, then each period should remain valid for the period it was. If it's like a painting, is it really that much like a painter to devalue his prior works or periods? 

I mean if he expects us to dishonor his previous works in the way he does, wouldn't have be closer to denigrating what I cannot do myself? I can't write Lizard, or Fallen Angel or Frame by Frame. So my inability is a constant across his body of work, just like his concentration on his music. 

I'm not trying to condemn a person as much as think about the whole subject of pretense and music. There's a certain point where punk is pretentious. A person who writes "songs like Genesis" because they love 70s Genesis is in a punk-fashion less pretentious than a person who has to make stuff that doesn't sound like anybody else because they want to prove what a original genius they are. (No, that's not a slam at Fripp, either.)

In one sense you can say "prog is pretentious" in another sense you can say pretending to like music that is current when I just love the soundscapes of the prog era was a stigma that a lot of us 90s prog fans shook off. On the other hand, I often find myself pretentious when I reject pop bands because they're pop and later end up finding their tunes infectious. I tried not to like INXS, for example. I just couldn't win that battle over defining my own image. 

I guess you get so used to like-dislike discussion on these forums that it's hard to tell when somebody likes to go beyond that, call it pretension if you will. 

 

Robert has been, from day one, about his concentration level and dedication to that concentration that would help him do the things that he did. We can't see the movie in his head ... but no one will sit here and argue ... how did you find that? ... because we know he did!

 

You HAVE to let go and "devalue" (your word) the works of the past ... if you are an artist, or you become just another middle class hero (John Lennon words), and not an artist, simply repeating the same beat --- which is what a lot of bands today are doing since they can not do anything else!

 

And since you might not know this, it was very much the tradition of the 50s and 60's in film and theater and painting and music and literature to "devalue" (your word!) the previous material and work, in order to find something else, new and exciting ... please check out the "krautrock" special by the BBC, and pay particular attention to Edgar Froese's comments ... which in the end, is not just about "krautrock" but a whole generation around the world! They really are important words that define more about you and I ... than anything else we do or say ... !!!! Or, if it is your "bend" get "The Trip" and listen to Ken's words in the end ... about our ability to learn ... and even he thinks that we cop'd out in our excuses and did not learn! These are/were major artists of our time and the ones that we remember ... and they are not exactly perfect my words, but their sentiment is perfect!

 

axeman wrote: ... I guess you get so used to like-dislike discussion on these forums that it's hard to tell when somebody likes to go beyond that, call it pretension if you will.

-------------
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