Print Page | Close Window

Misinterpreting the term "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=92899
Printed Date: November 27 2014 at 18:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Misinterpreting the term "prog"
Posted By: chamberry
Subject: Misinterpreting the term "prog"
Date Posted: April 07 2013 at 20:53
Hey,

I've always had this confusion when I started listening to prog rock until I started listening to different sorts of music. 

Why do we take the term "prog rock" as being "progressive", that is to say, as if it was the only rock genre that progresses, that's evolved, that never stagnates, that's always new, different, from what "normal music" is?

Think about it. That's a big statement, and quite ignorant considering the history of popular music since, well, jazz.

I mean, wasn't jazz a progress from the classical music academia, a less strict, more available way of making music?
Wasn't psychedelic rock a progress from standard R&B pop singles?
Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?
Wasn't synth pop a progress from the traditional way of playing music?
Wasn't industrial a progress from the strict definition of music?
Wasn't post-punk a progress from punk?
Wasn't metal a progress from the hard rock of the early 70's?
Wasn't techno a progress from the experimental, amoeba-like, electronic music from the krautrock era?

The list goes on and on.

Why does the ghost of "progress" still clings to, what we consider, prog rock? We know that the term was labeled in a specific time and place, for a specific type of music. We know that progressive rock is this sort of rock that has this and that characteristics... But why do we still believe that prog rock is synonymous with a progress, of some sort, in music, and still shun bands that don't fit into the mold?  Surely there was confusion between the term progressive and the genre progressive rock, but why does it still stand? Haven't we got enough music to listen to to realize that that's not true?

As if prog rock, as a genre, was the sole place where one could find revolutionary musical ideas...
As if progress, had a mold that one needs to fit in...

Really?

If prog rock is synonymous with progress in music, then PUNK should be prog rock as well! It's an absurd statement that can be justified with the same line of reasoning used by people who think that prog rock is the same as progressive-thinking music... and progress in music can include a strive for simplicity, a strive for a break from the mold, a strive for a distancing from what prog rock is.

Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought?

Can we stop being such elitist c*nts, for once, and actually learn from our errors? Embarrassed


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




Replies:
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: April 07 2013 at 20:55
I'm trying to stir things up since my last visit to the forums. It seems quite tame nowadays.

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



Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: April 07 2013 at 20:56
If it ain't a blast from the past.

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


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: April 07 2013 at 21:49
Let's just listen to the music we like and enjoy it.

-------------
"and what music unites, man should not take apart"--Helmut Koellen                               


Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: April 07 2013 at 22:10
^ True that, but it's a nag to hear people confusing the term over and over again... So I want to be a nag too. You know, confront the doubt instead of just going with it or ignoring it, because a lot of people are missing out on awesome music because of it, too.

Also. rushfan4, I'm glad to see you too, bro.


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



Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: April 07 2013 at 23:42
There are different kinds of changes in music as there is in life itself.  The music scene undergoes change continuously, modification may be a better term than progressing, since the latter implies some sort of improvement while the former does not.  Punk was a modification of rock in the 70s, and in many ways was a response to what we now are calling Prog Rock.  We can only call it an improvement if we dislike the Prog Rock of the time and like Punk better.  The progressive in Prog Rock does not mean that the music is modified from earler forms and artists, but that the music itself progresses from its base, similar to how a classical piece progresses from its initial themes and structures.  I like to listen to music that undergoes changes in the course of an individual piece or a set of related pieces.  This applies as much to Prog Rock and it does to Classical, and I listen to both.  And still, there are many ways this can be done.

-------------
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 01:42
I thought that most of us have long got over this subject and do not equate progressiveness in music with prog rock as a label for a certain style of music.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 01:45
I tend to follow Ian Anderson's view on the subject. ''Prog rock'' started about 1972 with Thick As A Brick etc. The progressiveness that existed in rock music lasted all the way to about 1971 (Tarkus, Nursery Cryme, Aqualung). After that there was more or less a set approach ( complexity being the major stylistic theme). I like the term 'prog rock' and I believe that most understand what that means. 




Posted By: sukmytoe
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 01:47
I think that the "Prog" side of prog rock doesn't mean progression in terms of time periods - that it does mean progression within the music itself. I see "prog" as music that has progressed beyond the standard in terms of complexity and structure - not as anything more or less than that. Thus Punk, for example, was a movement or a fad, if you will, that spawned the kind of music that we refer to as punk irrelevantly of how it started. There is nothing wrong with "a progressive punk band" - if a band played a more complex  form of punk rock - falling within the progressive sphere as we understand it. However Punk was never progressive in itself although it progressed from standard rock music. The same would apply to Disco, Grunge etc etc.
A standard metal band - although metal itself is progressive due to the fact that it progressed from rock music - is not progressive in itself. Again, to me, it's all about complexity, structure and a progression beyond the norm of a standard form irrelevantly of where that form came from or progressed from in terms of time. Damn - I nearly confused myself there - heh heh.
 


Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 04:42
Welcome back, Ruben, and might I add, not a moment too soon. Clap

As for the matter at hand, personally I never had that view of Prog being "progressive" - my opinion has always been much closer to what sukmytoe posted above. Trouble is, as a term for describing music it only made sense when it was initially coined, it has long been obsolete. What we have today and how to classify it... I really don't know and, frankly, don't think I really care anymore.



-------------
Bigger on the inside.


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 07:56
Is techno a progress from Krautrock? I'd call it  a regress. I have never liked Kraftwerk,  they are already synth-pop. 
A change is not always a progress. I don't dislike Punk, but it was a regress from rock and roll of the 50s, nothing to do with dinosaurs. 
If for synth-pop we mean the use of a Yamaha DX7 to Fairlight in a Howard Jones sense, I prefer sticking to traditional ways (even though I don't know what's the meaning: celtic? Polka? Guitar, Bass and Drums?)





-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 09:37
Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Hey,

I've always had this confusion when I started listening to prog rock until I started listening to different sorts of music. 

Why do we take the term "prog rock" as being "progressive", that is to say, as if it was the only rock genre that progresses, that's evolved, that never stagnates, that's always new, different, from what "normal music" is?

Think about it. That's a big statement, and quite ignorant considering the history of popular music since, well, jazz.

I mean, wasn't jazz a progress from the classical music academia, a less strict, more available way of making music?
Wasn't psychedelic rock a progress from standard R&B pop singles?
Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?
Wasn't synth pop a progress from the traditional way of playing music?
Wasn't industrial a progress from the strict definition of music?
Wasn't post-punk a progress from punk?
Wasn't metal a progress from the hard rock of the early 70's?
Wasn't techno a progress from the experimental, amoeba-like, electronic music from the krautrock era?

The list goes on and on.

Why does the ghost of "progress" still clings to, what we consider, prog rock? We know that the term was labeled in a specific time and place, for a specific type of music. We know that progressive rock is this sort of rock that has this and that characteristics... But why do we still believe that prog rock is synonymous with a progress, of some sort, in music, and still shun bands that don't fit into the mold?  Surely there was confusion between the term progressive and the genre progressive rock, but why does it still stand? Haven't we got enough music to listen to to realize that that's not true?

As if prog rock, as a genre, was the sole place where one could find revolutionary musical ideas...
As if progress, had a mold that one needs to fit in...

Really?

If prog rock is synonymous with progress in music, then PUNK should be prog rock as well! It's an absurd statement that can be justified with the same line of reasoning used by people who think that prog rock is the same as progressive-thinking music... and progress in music can include a strive for simplicity, a strive for a break from the mold, a strive for a distancing from what prog rock is.

Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought?

Can we stop being such elitist c*nts, for once, and actually learn from our errors? Embarrassed
 
I understand where you are going with this and I believe the analogy which may be hard for you to stomach was invented by musicians. It has more to do with the science of formulas and the lyrical concepts as well, but also the attitude of seasoned musicians with their cruel thrusts against Punk. Probably a mentality that developed long ago and has cemented it's meaning for decades into the minds of fans. You may have to start a revolution to end it. Think about it and compare the accusation I make of musicians to the pattern of history.   


Posted By: dysoriented
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 12:13
Genres are genres, genres are labels, labels are words, words are groups of letters. Isn't it all one big progression? LOL


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 14:24
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I tend to follow Ian Anderson's view on the subject. ''Prog rock'' started about 1972 with Thick As A Brick etc. The progressiveness that existed in rock music lasted all the way to about 1971 (Tarkus, Nursery Cryme, Aqualung). After that there was more or less a set approach ( complexity being the major stylistic theme). I like the term 'prog rock' and I believe that most understand what that means. 


 
Not sure what Anderson is talking about here since ITCOTCK was in '69...and that was certainly progressive rock imo. Is he just referring to when the term was coined..?
Confused
 
 
Chanberrry said, " Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought?"
I think most here would agree with that...so what point  is 'Chanberry' trying to make...?


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 14:37
I don't think Prog means "progressive rock" or "art rock" meas progressive rock.  For instance, the modern fine art world is often pretty regressive, sometimes  could even be considered big investment scams set up by collectors and some art magazines. The museums are following suit, quite often.  Progressive Rock should be progressing in the usual criteria of music used historically for serious music.  Art rock can just be the "greasy spoon aesthetic" of heroin influenced music done even more drony and crappily then before.   There are "progressive" elements in some rock bands that I have a hard time considering Prog.  The term Prog has a dear spot in my mind.  To me, it basically means progressive rock that shares traditional spiritual values that were pretty common before the 1980s.  There is some modern progressive rock that is nihilistic and actually sounds like circus music and I have a hard time associating that with Prog. When I say spiritual values, I could even say cultural values.



-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 08 2013 at 15:22
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I tend to follow Ian Anderson's view on the subject. ''Prog rock'' started about 1972 with Thick As A Brick etc. The progressiveness that existed in rock music lasted all the way to about 1971 (Tarkus, Nursery Cryme, Aqualung). After that there was more or less a set approach ( complexity being the major stylistic theme). I like the term 'prog rock' and I believe that most understand what that means. 


 
Not sure what Anderson is talking about here since ITCOTCK was in '69...and that was certainly progressive rock imo. Is he just referring to when the term was coined..?
Confused
 
 
Chanberrry said, " Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought?"
I think most here would agree with that...so what point  is 'Chanberry' trying to make...?

He was considering 'prog rock' to be a bi-product of 'progressive rock' I think

'prog' tends to describe a lot of noodling for the sake of it,arty conceptual music and Roger Dean album covers. 
Personally I like the term for that reasonLOL


Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 06:58
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Chanberrry said, " Can we just get over the fact that prog rock is simply a label, a genre, and not a term that encompasses all progress in musical thought?"
I think most here would agree with that...so what point  is 'Chanberry' trying to make...?

I think the point he wants to make is, that some people criticize music, if they sound too much like Genesis, Yes, King Crimson etc, as being derivative and give it a bad review.
Luckily, what I see is, that the majority here does not seem to have this attitude.
I agree with Chanberry and probably with the majority, that 'prog rock' is a genre with certain characteristics, and is not "progressive" as such.


-------------
I am a prog rock DJ in Second Life under the name Exiles Lavender. http://85.214.131.100:8140/" rel="nofollow - My stream URL.


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 07:02
There is a difference between "prog" and "progressive".

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 07:04
Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?
 
In what way was punk a musical progression from prog?


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 09:24
There is no one interpretation of prog so there is no question of misinterpreting it.   Prog started out with exploration and experimentation hence the interpretation of prog as a progressive ideal is also valid.   I consider both ideas of prog - as a genre and as an approach - valid and I do have a problem if the latter is sought to be vetoed.   Prog metal is dissimilar to symph prog or any other 70s prog genre on several counts so if prog was ONLY a genre, prog metal would have never been recognised as such. 


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 09:40
To a musician with years of experience, progression is the growth of your abilities and talents like a fine wine. Progressive is to play "Progressive" which would suggest many aspects to the expanding growth of a  musician that is schooled. After expanding into ethnic styles, Classical music, traditional Folk and Jazz ..it is now up to you to expand yourself. You are schooled and can play many complex pieces, but how will you add the music to your own vocabulary. What is your version/concept of expression through the styles of music mentioned above? This is the most important developmental stage of a musician and the meaning or purpose is to be progressive. The reason Punk doesn't get tagged/mentioned in the same breath as Prog is directly to blame on the old school complexity of musicianship. 
I don't believe the Punk society was completely anti-prog. They seemed to follow the ENID around in the early days when the band engaged in strictly instrumental Classical Rock. According to history within the music industry..Punk closed the doors on Prog. Prog was huge in the media for years , but Punk changed the attitudes of the youth. Just as the attitudes of the youth changed during the "Glam Rock" period with Bowie, T.Rex, Roxy Music and even prior to that with Velvet Underground. Syd Barrett was influential to Punk Rock..although he often slammed the door when the Punks hunted him down. I believe the hard feelings musicians had for Punk revolved around the loss of freedom to play progressive along with having radio airplay, record contract, and massive touring. Every progressive outstanding musician I knew from 1974 to 1980 was livid about it. This was a real scene and not something you read in a book where I've found mistakes and mis-quotes because the person writing the book did not grow up in that period , misunderstands concepts or a certain ideology and it's impossible for them to grab a true "hands on" experience and so their book is fringe play.
 
In the progressive world of musicians dating from '68 with Family's Music in a Doll's House through to the bitter end with ELP Love Beach , the attitude of interest was mainly to add music of other cultures to Rock. It was a challenge for musicians to not only play something to perfection, but to write a score themselves. The money was there and over time it's status built and extended to events like California Jam. Punk destroyed all opportunities for a prog musician to continue a worthy career in music. That's a fact that should be accepted for it is part of music industry history and forget all the other points to justify what is relevant with an emotional rise to form a different opinion and simply accept the reality of why progressive musicians hated Punk. To be honest, I never hated Punk..but every great musician around me did for decades and  it's impossible to question the evident in this case.
  


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 10:01
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?

 

In what way was punk a musical progression from prog?


Punk was 'Reg Rock' 'Regressive Rock'



-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 10:16
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?

 

In what way was punk a musical progression from prog?


Punk was 'Reg Rock' 'Regressive Rock'



Agreed. It wasn't even novel or innovative, just a rehash of late 60s MC5 and The Stooges.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 15:45
I'm  going to try and not lose any sleep about this tonight.

-------------
                


Posted By: kaptcha
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 16:32
Hi there, I hope you don´t mind I post a question inside this post but I cannot create topics; The thing is that I m trying to go ahead with a black sabbath-like underground band around Spain; it is the first time I try to arrange a lyric in english ( I got another project singing in spanish ) so I would like to check out if it is understandable for you ( english-speakers opinion needed! ), don´t care too much about the music; just a quick demo playing over drumbox, could you please help me?. Tnks a million!.
http://grmr.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://grmr.bandcamp.com/


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 17:02
Right now, my lunch is progressing to my small intestines.  Can't wait to see what this will lead to.

-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran


Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 18:03
I believe many genres are formed out of innovative thinking, and new technology, so it's an initial progressive step. But once the genre has been formed and defined, it doesn't continue to evolve and change character. Punk became stagnant very quickly. But it redefined the rules of pop and rock music. The problem with the word genre is that by defining something you define limits. Progressiveness is supposed to be limitless, and in many ways it was/is/can be. All those artists wasn't moving in the same direction, they were moving in different directions. They wanted to expand the definition of rock/pop, not create one new genre. So if you want to define prog rock as a genre , it will naturally be difficult. But that's the point, that's why it is progressive.

Making music "in the style of prog", emulating some band/s, must be called prog, but it doesn't represent the nature of what prog originally was.  I believe it is to try to be forward-looking, even if it can be hard in these days, and explore sounds, making use of influences without trying to sound like them, and creating something fairly original. I believe classical training or other advanced musical fields can be a great influence or tool to fuse with pop/rock elements.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 09 2013 at 19:21
^^^  The problem with prog rock IS that it is called progressive rock.   The word itself creates expectations and that is reasonable.  If it was called something like art rock or pomp rock or what have you, the idea of prog rock as only a genre of imitation of 70s artists would be more easily accepted.


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 12 2013 at 17:29
Look, its "Prog" not "Progressive". in the 90s, we froze the term. Bunch of us wanted to talk about our favorite, long-abused bands from the 70s on usenet. We had style-prudes coming in all the time saying that alt.music.progressive really should change its name since musical tastes stuck back in the 70s wasn't all that "progressive". (Argument by Equivocation, beautiful!)

The newsgroup name stayed, but we prog fans agreed that we would not fret these more-progressive-and-current-than-thou prudes anymore and just call it "prog". It's a derivative of music that once was viewed as "progressive"--or at least sold that way. It's also rock, a certain genre of pop, as well.  



-------------
-John


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 12 2013 at 17:44
New wave came in when selling a new look or style--or video presence became more important than creating music. I don't think the same of Peter Gabriel, who help shape the course of New Wave. Punk was more about attitude and rebellion than music. "Progressed" but not in terms of music

Some of us aren't as interested in image or attitude or rebellion--or even if we are we have a equal or greater side of us that just likes music.

You can say that music itself has been stuck in a rut for years, using the same 12 notes over and over again. Fine, but I'm not likely to listen to 20 minutes of cat-screeching because it's hipper than "stale" notes and not that many people do it. Some people like to move beyond music and make it "sound" so that they can "innovate" by throwing other stuff in there. Not that I dislike all forms of this "innovation" but, if I'm going to listen, it needs to have a consistency that I identify as music. 

The tyranny of mood, fashion, and style is a hype of its own. But an attachment to the underlying forms of music is what creates the corpus of what we "prog" fans share among ourselves. I like some new wave, but if you step away from it, it was selling image and style. Again punk made people feel vital and that you neglected them at your own peril. But it's all show and its' not a lot music


-------------
-John


Posted By: ProgressiveMike
Date Posted: April 12 2013 at 20:45
Stop being a prog denier. Lol. Prog rock is the apple jacks of music man. It doesn't taste like apples. Everyone has their own means of defining what is and what isn't prog rock, but Punk is certainly a regressive rock. There is nothing progressive about; "Beat on the brat! Beat on the brat! Beat on the brat with a baseball bat! Oh-yeah!" Although there might indeed be something progressive in; "This is a public service announcement.... WITH GUITAR!" Just like Primus, long as I've denied it, is certainly a prog rock band. Let'e face it. The influence of bands like Rush is obvious with other influences like the Residents and Peter Gabriel. Well more than Peter Gabriel I think it was the Tony Levin influence, who of course was a memeber of King Crimson during Discipline (undoubtedly a huge influence on the Primus sound, not to discount The Talking Drum from Lark's Tongue In Aspic) and played bass for Peter Gabriel. Alot of people deny what can be considered as modern prog by calling it something different. Go listen to the Flaming Lips, then hate yourself because it's prog as hell. At least my favorite albums The Soft Bulletin (which can actually crush a fragile and drug induced mind as it is a beautiful comment on life and death) or Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots ( my favorite tracks being Approaching Pavonis mons By Balloon and One More Robot/Sympathy 3000-21 (which, by my own conclusion, may be about a vibrator)).


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2013 at 23:34
I wonder who's the 'we' in axeman's rants.  Certainly not me, by the looks of it.  Exclusion continues to be very attractive more than 40 years since John Lennon wrote Imagine, it seems.  


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 00:55
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I wonder who's the 'we' in axeman's rants.  Certainly not me, by the looks of it.  Exclusion continues to be very attractive more than 40 years since John Lennon wrote Imagine, it seems.  
That's funny. You're pretty oblivious to your own exclusionary behavior, then. Because most people you can think of are somehow not part of my "we". You probably can't recognize the irony of excluding people like me from whatever you consider your group of non-exclusives.The whole purpose of that statement is to say that I'm not part of your little group of respectables, because I said something you can't identify with. 

We can probably agree on some music though, because music is reactive and doesn't take a coherent position or consistent logical application. 

"We" the people who shortened the name to "prog" because we didn't want to get into the "that's not as progressive as music that I pride myself in liking" argument, and just wanted to talk about a style of music. 

I mean do you realize how often conversations about our favorite bands, and what other bands we might like to try, were broken up by the "why do you listen to that music" kind of guys? Guys who would come into a usenet newsgroup and argue about whether or not you should call it that--like the founders of the news group had stolen their name or something. Like they had just awoke to find squatters on their property. Like you had to pass their muster to call your music, something that it had previously been known by. 

Of course, it probably escapes you how exclusionary all that more-progressive-than-thou crap is. 

I will reiterate it's "prog" not "progressive" because it's ground that some of us (happy?) gave up years ago, because we were more interested in talking about music we liked than fighting over a disputed territory or a coveted term for our music. I'm pretty sure that's why people with this interest use that four-letter word a lot more than they do "progressive". "prog" is a type of music, "progressive" is an assertion about an effect of the music. 

If you guys want to fight this war all over again, in a place called "ProgArchives" (a place where people talk about music they like--just like ProgRock radio was a place that people listened to music they liked.) I guess that's your preference. Sure a couple of people can tell you "'Prog" is different from 'progressive'", but I don't see that they  elaborate that difference. I did. 


-------------
-John


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:06
Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

Right now, my lunch is progressing to my small intestines.  Can't wait to see what this will lead to.


Brilliant.

The sort of post that is completely wasted on some of the undeserving swine that congregate hereabouts

Clap


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:24
Originally posted by ProgressiveMike ProgressiveMike wrote:

Go listen to the Flaming Lips, then hate yourself because it's prog as hell.
I like the Flaming Lips. And as much as I enjoy Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, the Lips still seem mainly pop--innovative pop perhaps, interesting pop, definitely. 

I like A Spoonful Weighs a Ton, but it's good regardless of what label I put on it. But I have to admit that even from She Don't Use Jelly something about Coyne's slide-work has seemed evocative of prog, if nothing else. Just a year back or so, I spent a whole night on Youtube listening to nothing but Lips songs. We would anybody hate themselves over whether or not some good music has the label prog or not. 

However, I know one thing, a majority of people who enjoy the Flaming Lips as "Alternative" aren't going to have nearly as many things in their collection that I'll find interesting as somebody who identifies with "prog" and just happens to enjoy the Lips. 


-------------
-John


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:30
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

If it was called something like art rock or pomp rock or what have you, the idea of prog rock as only a genre of imitation of 70s artists would be more easily accepted.
Really? Because nobody would ever covet the name "art" for their music, right? Ermm

"What makes copying bands from the 70s 'art'? Gosh! You guys are so unreasonable to call your music what you call it!"


-------------
-John


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:43
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I wonder who's the 'we' in axeman's rants.  Certainly not me, by the looks of it.  Exclusion continues to be very attractive more than 40 years since John Lennon wrote Imagine, it seems.  
That's funny. You're pretty oblivious to your own exclusionary behavior, then. Because most people you can think of are somehow not part of my "we". You probably can't recognize the irony of excluding people like me from whatever you consider your group of non-exclusives.The whole purpose of that statement is to say that I'm not part of your little group of respectables, because I said something you can't identify with. 

We can probably agree on some music though, because music is reactive and doesn't take a coherent position or consistent logical application. 

"We" the people who shortened the name to "prog" because we didn't want to get into the "that's not as progressive as music that I pride myself in liking" argument, and just wanted to talk about a style of music. 

I mean do you realize how often conversations about our favorite bands, and what other bands we might like to try, were broken up by the "why do you listen to that music" kind of guys? Guys who would come into a usenet newsgroup and argue about whether or not you should call it that--like the founders of the news group had stolen their name or something. Like they had just awoke to find squatters on their property. Like you had to pass their muster to call your music, something that it had previously been known by. 

Of course, it probably escapes you how exclusionary all that more-progressive-than-thou crap is. 

I will reiterate it's "prog" not "progressive" because it's ground that some of us (happy?) gave up years ago, because we were more interested in talking about music we liked than fighting over a disputed territory or a coveted term for our music. I'm pretty sure that's why people with this interest use that four-letter word a lot more than they do "progressive". "prog" is a type of music, "progressive" is an assertion about an effect of the music. 

If you guys want to fight this war all over again, in a place called "ProgArchives" (a place where people talk about music they like--just like ProgRock radio was a place that people listened to music they liked.) I guess that's your preference. Sure a couple of people can tell you "'Prog" is different from 'progressive'", but I don't see that they  elaborate that difference. I did. 


I was interested in the tone of your original comment.  Once again, who's the we here?  There are plenty of prog rock fans across the world and you are attempting to decide on their behalf what it should be called.  I have the option not to agree with you and I choose not to.  I was first introduced to the term progressive rock and not prog rock and, no, I didn't grow up in the 70s.  Forums like these are probably the only places where the abbreviation prog has come to mean something else...er, 'we' don't even know what it really means because 'we' insist it doesn't expand to progressive.  If you had read my earlier comments, you'd have known that I do not insist on only music that progresses as being recognized as prog rock.  But I have to point out that the term itself creates these expectations so to later on insist that prog has nothing to do with progressive is a contradiction.   It is not for 'we' to insist what this music should be called.  People can call it what they want, yes, they can. 

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:


Fine, but I'm not likely to listen to 20 minutes of cat-screeching because it's hipper than "stale" notes and not that many people do it.



It's not about your likes or dislikes.  If 'we' try to bend the name of a genre to suit our likes and dislikes, it would be utter chaos.  A widely used genre term doesn't HAVE to conform to your personal understanding of it.  I am sure you'd easily find 70s prog rock bands that you don't like, so likes and dislikes are irrelevant.   It may be that what you dub cat screeching actually has musical qualities shared with 70s prog but your tastes bias you against recognizing this, so that's dangerously unreliable.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 01:47
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

If it was called something like art rock or pomp rock or what have you, the idea of prog rock as only a genre of imitation of 70s artists would be more easily accepted.
Really? Because nobody would ever covet the name "art" for their music, right? Ermm

"What makes copying bands from the 70s 'art'? Gosh! You guys are so unreasonable to call your music what you call it!"


No, because art rock already has a wider usage and is typically applied to rock bands or artists who don't fit the electric guitar, drums, blood and sweat straitjacket.  Acts like David Bowie or Kate Bush.   I am sure that for some prog rock elitists, that would be as serious a downgrade as Cyrpus being cut down to junk but to me, prog rock broadly fits in the art rock basket.   Again, I am not trying to exclude to find out why it cannot be art rock....only focusing on what qualities art rock has that you don't find in typical, out and out rock music.   Since art rock understood this way is only a stylistic notion and not one that focuses on progression or innovation, it would be easier to avoid controversy as to what can  be included in art rock and what cannot.  

Also, an act of expression through a chosen medium (could be music, could be painting, could be cinema) is art so, yes, imitation can indeed be art.   What is 'so' art about is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder.


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 03:15
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I was interested in the tone of your original comment.  Once again, who's the we here?  There are plenty of prog rock fans across the world and you are attempting to decide on their behalf what it should be called.
I think you have it precisely backward. I'm giving perspective of my understanding of why it's called "prog". Where exactly do I say what you have to call it? 

But it's silly to say that you're going to call it "progressive" and then complain that...no...it's not actually progressive enough. You don't have to call it "prog", you can call it "Shoe music" or "squigglies", but people won't be able to locate that as fast as "prog" which has nearly a 20-year tradition behind it. 

"We" as I have elaborated in various iterations was the population of the usenet group alt.music.progressive that cared to discuss whether or not we would contend for the name "progressive". There was a brainstorming session consisting of at least a week, and then people said (I was one) why not shorten the name to "prog". It's just a identification tag, not a claim.

And if the word "prog" is the internet term, forged for the very reason that I suggested it was, to avoid contention without those who wanted the term for their own music preferences, then unpacking "progressive" from "prog" is the type of thing that that term exists to avoid. (Now to understand that last sentence, think what the word "if" means, I'm not pontificating, I'm filling in an understanding of where the term originates.)  And again, mainly for the purpose of putting one brand of music that somebody else enjoys as more legitimate or whatever than the type of music that your group may have derived its own name to simply serve as a marker for others of similar tastes. 

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I have the option not to agree with you and I choose not to.
No you don't. You are bound by the tatters of the King in Yellow to agree with me. Ermm

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I was first introduced to the term progressive rock and not prog rock...Forums like these are probably the only places where the abbreviation prog has come to mean something else
Then perhaps it's your misunderstanding in equating the two. Perhaps the person who calls prog rock "progressive rock"
thinks Yes and 70s prog are "progressive" in some sort of universal standard--or really doesn't care. Being that you can't control--and hey, I'll admit it--I can't either--what people construe as what. But you come into a group and suddenly they're calling the same thing that your friend called "progressive" "prog" and you think it's simply an abbreviation. I can try harder to bind your mind, but I don't know who told you that it was simply an abbreviation either (if you let me know, I can try to bind their mind as well.) 

Originally posted by </span><span style=font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;>rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Fine, but I'm not likely to listen to 20 minutes of cat-screeching because it's hipper than "stale" notes and not that many people do it.


It's not about your likes or dislikes.  If 'we' try to bend the name of a genre to suit our likes and dislikes, it would be utter chaos.
This is another place where I think you have it precisely backward. It's not about bending the name. It has an identified name: "prog", it's you who are extending it. To, as I see it, pick a fight from 20 years ago that it's not a good enough name for the genre you chose to describe with it, or people aren't being true to their claim to like "progressive" music if they don't like the same stuff you think better fits the name "progressive". 


[QUOTE=rogerthat]A widely used genre term doesn't HAVE to conform to your personal understanding of it. [/QUOTE]Again, backwards--and ironic, because you're arguing that because you can't unpack "progressive" from the name "prog" and restart an argument from 20 years ago so you can disagree with the claim your straw man is making. 

[QUOTE=rogerthat]I am sure you'd easily find 70s prog rock bands that you don't like[/QUOTE]Not even germane to the discussion.

[QUOTE=rogerthat] It may be that what you dub cat screeching actually has musical qualities shared with 70s prog but your tastes bias you against recognizing this, so that's dangerously unreliable.[/QUOTE]See, so quick to criticize that you couldn't even consider what I "dubbed" cat screeching might have actually referred to the picture in my mind of an actual physical cat, of the genus felis, actually physically screeching and somebody actually physically recording such a thing because "nobody else does it". 

Look, if we can unpack "progressive" from "prog" then why can't we unpack "progression" or "progress" from "progressive". And then, in calling some music "progressive" and not another, wouldn't that be guilty of "deciding for everyone" what moves music forward? What gives you the right to tell everybody which way is forward? 

What I don't think you understand is that in your argument style there are as many pitfalls as points to make. But in an everybody-is-right-in-their-own-way world, where its' authoritarian to give names to things unless they prove themselves objectively so (and then, who gets to decide when it's "proven"?), "progress" is what a group of people want it to mean. If people don't want to go in that direction, it's not "progress". In fact, the only thing you'll be able to point is that it's changed--so why not call it "changed music" instead of progressive? 

When you realize that people like the implication of "progress", then you realize why you can't just call it "changed music". No, it has to be "progress", or there is not the prestige.

My point is that maybe early-70s progressive is great because it moved music a little bit off its center, but didn't topple it--like the musical theorist who gives you a book of textures and whatever music you think of when you feel the textures is the music of that "piece". And perhaps it is good for music to be jostled from its center throughout the ages. But simply to say that because the genius of the past went in one direction, that ignoring whatever root it has, we must  simply trudge off to the horizon in a similar direction is not compelling. Thus the trick is to stay in a tension with the eternal form of music, not to endlessly "progress" simply because what we enjoy has been pushed in that direction.  


-------------
-John


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 03:47
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

I think you have it precisely backward. I'm giving perspective of my understanding of why it's called "prog". Where exactly do I say what you have to call it?


Here:
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:


Look, its "Prog" not "Progressive". in the 90s, we froze the term


Excuse me, froze?   You can call it what you want but you can't insist on your interpretation.   Prog never froze in my eyes or that of others.  Prog rock fests have had bands like DT or Opeth over, so I don't derive my understanding from a 'strawman' but from the contemporary position of prog. 
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

But it's silly to say that you're going to call it "progressive" and then complain that...no...it's not actually progressive enough. You don't have to call it "prog", you can call it "Shoe music" or "squigglies", but people won't be able to locate that as fast as "prog" which has nearly a 20-year tradition behind it.


I am not saying that you have to call it that.  That is what it is called in general, apart from the aforesaid usenet group.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Then perhaps it's your misunderstanding in equating the two. Perhaps the person who calls prog rock "progressive rock" thinks Yes and 70s prog are "progressive" in some sort of universal standard--or really doesn't care. Being that you can't control--and hey, I'll admit it--I can't either--what people construe as what. But you come into a group and suddenly they're calling the same thing that your friend called "progressive" "prog" and you think it's simply an abbreviation. I can try harder to bind your mind, but I don't know who told you that it was simply an abbreviation either (if you let me know, I can try to bind their mind as well.)


It is not A person who told me, that is what PA says.  Progressive rock.  You can read the word at the top of the website or the forum.  It is a progressive rock music resource, not 'prog'.  Just because your usenet group has some different understanding of it, you cannot pretend that I am coming from Mars with some farfetched notion of prog rock (which is how you make it sound).  On the other hand, the way I use prog rock is the most common usage.  Whether on websites or on person, I have always heard prog rock fans address it as only an abbreviation of progressive rock. 


Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

This is another place where I think you have it precisely backward. It's not about bending the name. It has an identified name: "prog", it's you who are extending it. To, as I see it, pick a fight from 20 years ago that it's not a good enough name for the genre you chose to describe with it, or people aren't being true to their claim to like "progressive" music if they don't like the same stuff you think better fits the name "progressive".


And prog derives from progressive rock, so I don't have it backwards at all.  It is you who insist that prog should be the only usage and it should be unbundled from progressive rock.  I have no problem at all with both 70s prog or its contemporary imitations being bundled together with other progressive rock music.  Your usenet group conclusion is not some Magna Carta of prog that the rest have to abide by it.   In any case, this is the forum of progarchives, not alt.progressive so 'your' rules don't apply here.  


Originally posted by </span><span style=font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;>rogerthat</span><span style=font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;></span><span style=font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;> rogerthat wrote:

Again, backwards--and ironic, because you're arguing that because you can't unpack "progressive" from the name "prog" and restart an argument from 20 years ago so you can disagree with the claim your straw man is making.


It is not a question of unpacking, it is what it is.  Once again, "Ultimate Progressive Rock Discography"....the guidelines describe what is progressive rock.   It has never been unbundled.  Rather, music in the vein of 70s progressive rock as well as new progressive rock are all recognized as progressive rock, prog/prog rock in short.  


Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Not even germane to the discussion.


It is.  What if cat screeching was recorded by a well recognized prog rock band from the 70s?  What would you say to that?  There is sort of a parallel to that:  Seamus.  What exactly do your preferences in music have to do with what it is called in general?

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

See, so quick to criticize that you couldn't even consider what I "dubbed" cat screeching might have actually referred to the picture in my mind of an actual physical cat, of the genus felis, actually physically screeching and somebody actually physically recording such a thing because "nobody else does it".



Addressed above.  A great composer once said that even a dog's bark could be music and it could be that he did have Seamus in mind.  If there is some music within your favourite 'label' that doesn't appeal at all to your tastes and in fact repels you, let it go, don't listen to it.  You can't try to draw lines in the sand to exclude it. 

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Look, if we can unpack "progressive" from "prog" then why can't we unpack "progression" or "progress" from "progressive". And then, in calling some music "progressive" and not another, wouldn't that be guilty of "deciding for everyone" what moves music forward? What gives you the right to tell everybody which way is forward? 


I never said anything about progression at all.   I only said the name progressive rock suggests progress, which means we keep having this same old discussion over and over once every few years.  Why are some people so obstinate in refusing to concede that the term itself creates this confusion and it's totally not down to low intelligence levels or lack of awareness of listeners? And that is why I have argued for art rock as an alternative label which might avoid some of this confusion.

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

What I don't think you understand is that in your argument style there are as many pitfalls as points to make. But in an everybody-is-right-in-their-own-way world, where its' authoritarian to give names to things unless they prove themselves objectively so (and then, who gets to decide when it's "proven"?), "progress" is what a group of people want it to mean. If people don't want to go in that direction, it's not "progress". In fact, the only thing you'll be able to point is that it's changed--so why not call it "changed music" instead of progressive?

When you realize that people like the implication of "progress", then you realize why you can't just call it "changed music". No, it has to be "progress", or there is not the prestige.

My point is that maybe early-70s progressive is great because it moved music a little bit off its center, but didn't topple it--like the musical theorist who gives you a book of textures and whatever music you think of when you feel the textures is the music of that "piece". And perhaps it is good for music to be jostled from its center throughout the ages. But simply to say that because the genius of the past went in one direction, that ignoring whatever root it has, we must  simply trudge off to the horizon in a similar direction is not compelling. Thus the trick is to stay in a tension with the eternal form of music, not to endlessly "progress" simply because what we enjoy has been pushed in that direction.  


Irrelevant, because I have said over and over that I recognize both new progressive rock music and music in the vein of old prog as progressive rock.  The simple fact is you have a major problem with bundling both together even though on a place like PA, they are further sub divided into categories that avoid overlap for the most part.  New prog rock music typically slots in Prog metal or Post rock while symph prog continues to be called symph prog.  


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 05:23
Maybe some younger people are thinking some newer things are prog because they are comparing
it to the pop music of today.  Older people had a great pop music and we compared early prog to that.
Someone posted a "prog video" and others responded to it, perhaps they were mostly younger, but
I was thinking, "This music is not progressive." (OK, I thought, this music is not prog).   The pop music
of today is nothing like the pop music of the 60's and early 70s, which followed music patterns that
were pretty well established for hundreds of years.   It seems punk might have made pop even more
reductionistic. 



-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 13 2013 at 15:49
Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Hey,

I've always had this confusion when I started listening to prog rock until I started listening to different sorts of music. 

Why do we take the term "prog rock" as being "progressive", that is to say, as if it was the only rock genre that progresses, that's evolved, that never stagnates, that's always new, different, from what "normal music" is?
...
 
I've given up this discussion, because the majority of folks that end up commenting are not studied enough in the arts of the century to be able to comment and interpret your points correctly, and properly.
 
Above all, the definition is an oxymoron, and a total and complete disregard for the events of the time and place in the other arts, which simply shows the ignorance of a lot of rock fans, that think that theater is for queers and film is for the idiots, but they would gladly spend the dollar on the most mundane popular faire that would make the parallel to "progressive" sound and look totally absurd.
 
One of the articles that really pop'd me lately, is the one that is insane and so mis-guided as to be sad, and only shows how much we do not listen to anything at all, to even know how to make a proper comparison ... and it comes in two parts ... the thread about "analog" ... meaning that you are not listening to the music at all ... you don't listen to Beethoven ... ohh look ... that's a Strativarius X4356-089 ... which tells you that you are not listening to the music at ALL, to be ablel to show the instrument with the rest of the music ... it's sooooooo rock'n'rollish and pathetic that it brings the music down to the beginner levels! Or the other thread ... "proggy bass" .... and I went after it ... next thread "proggy guitar" ... and so far none of the "details" mentioned shows anything that someone would not do with their own instrument at any time and place! ... It's bizarre ... it's not even music oriented anymore!
 
And I think that this is the worst side of "progressive" and I do not think it can enter music history as long as it does not show a proper connection to its mother and father ... it's almost like it didn't have one! It's bizarre to say the least!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:01
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?
 
In what way was punk a musical progression from prog?
progression docent have to be more complex, Especialy in 20 th cent. Art, we have constant progression in the direktion of stripping down the piece, towards only having the most essential elements left. you could easily argue that was what punk did, stripping down rock music, to a point where only the raw energy was left. A completely understandable reaction to the period where rock was becoming more and more intellectual, and had lost contact with the majority of young people from the working class, the base rock originated from.


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:42
^^^  Additionally, the implicit suggestion that somebody like John McGeoch brought nothing new to the table appears either biased or uninformed to me.  Guitar went to new places in punk and not always within the boundaries of 'pure' punk but through its offshoots and the genres it influenced.  


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:50
Yes, like with every other genre, it evolved, the idear that punk was just a () in rock music is absurd, it influenced wave, it evolved into hardcore, it fused with elements from ska ect. ect.
Many of the band that today would be referred to as alternative, from Bjørk, to Green Day, have roots in punk.
And seen from a prog view it's obvious to mention TMV, they came directly from a punk/hardcore background.


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 01:57
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Yes, like with every other genre, it evolved, the idear that punk was just a () in rock music is absurd, it influenced wave, it evolved into hardcore, it fused with elements from ska ect. ect.
Many of the band that today would be referred to as alternative, from Bjørk, to Green Day, have roots in punk.
And seen from a prog view it's obvious to mention TMV, they came directly from a punk/hardcore background.


Really couldn't agree more.  Punk is indispensable to the developments in rock music (and even some pop) since the 80s onwards.  But then plenty of progsters hate MUSIC that doesn't have a 1979 or older date on it Tongue so it's not surprising they'd want to play down punk.  Also, things like burning effigies of Emerson were very disgusting and that has probably permanently turned the prog rock crowd off punk.  Music is not about hate, you shouldn't do things like that even for fun. 


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 12:55
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

...
Really couldn't agree more.  Punk is indispensable to the developments in rock music (and even some pop) since the 80s onwards.  But then plenty of progsters hate MUSIC that doesn't have a 1979 or older date on it Tongue so it's not surprising they'd want to play down punk.  Also, things like burning effigies of Emerson were very disgusting and that has probably permanently turned the prog rock crowd off punk.  Music is not about hate, you shouldn't do things like that even for fun. 
Considering where music came from in its history and the whole upper class thing falling apart in the 20th century, in the end, "punk" is a complete polar opposite of classical music, and as such it has something to offer that is vastly different that could/should help improve the classical ideas. Jazz is the same thing, with the exception that some people think that jazz is for hip people and punk is for street people ... and a lot of jazz in Europe is not as formulated as the one you find in NY City or San Francisco, where after a while you just want to leave and go get laid ... oooopppppssss ... drunk ... because it is so tiresome and full of itself, just like the classical counterparts!
 
The dislike between punk, for the most part, was its simplistic style of music that was more fit for beginning kids in music, than it was by bonafide musicians. Few people would argue that the technical design and ability in YES in its first 2 or 3 years, was vastly "superior" (at least in academic and detail terms!), than what a punk band was offering ... but the freshness of the attitude and total raw element of its design, is something that even the "progressive" bands can learn from, and actually avoided.
 
All music scenes have some value to them ... in many ways the "punk" thing, just like "rap" is not quite a musical scene, as much as it is a "social" scene, in its words and expressions ... and sometimes, in my view of things, this tends to lessen the expression musically ... you're so emotionally involved in screaming at your friend, girlfriend, or mom, or dad, that you forget the music ... and how to play ... so to speak ... and this is NOT something that is acceptable in music definition and standards in its history!
 
Thus the value, could easily be questioned, when the definition of progressive music is so mundane as to separate it into simple mechanics, at which point, punk has just as many mechanics, just different ones! ... .I'm not sure that we can see this when we're trying to compare things ... which leads to the same thing we do here, and I can be very guilty at times, when the definition is made strictly by fans, and not people that have a very good sense and history of music to see what the concept is about ... not understanding the conceptual basis and songs in ITCOTKC only means that you are missing out on what helped progressive come alive ... and it is something that still befuddles many and that understanding reduces the music to nothing but just another ... different ... punk!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: The Mystical
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 14:48
I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.

-------------
I am currently digging:

Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz!

Please drop me a message with album suggestions.


Posted By: dysoriented
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 15:36
Originally posted by The Mystical The Mystical wrote:

I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.


Haha, I'm with you, this is all so serious. Good music is good music, the label is just a bunch of letters :)


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 23:07
Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Wasn't punk a progress from the stagnant waters of the highly elitist music journalism and prog dinosaurs of the 70's?
Wasn't synth pop a progress from the traditional way of playing music?
Wasn't industrial a progress from the strict definition of music?
Wasn't post-punk a progress from punk?
Wasn't metal a progress from the hard rock of the early 70's?
Wasn't techno a progress from the experimental, amoeba-like, electronic music from the krautrock era?

Whoa... slow down there. Punk was perhaps the first ever reactionary movement in music (and in that historical sense, quite important). Sure, it wasn't exactly the same as older rock n' roll, but it was far more similar than it was different. You seem to be confusing synth pop with the synthesizer itself (or, ok, early electronic 'classical'). Industrial was not at all the first music to "question what sounds could be considered music". Post-punk and techno are minor variations on previous styles. Out of those genres you mention, metal probably exerted itself most to be "diverse", but its attempts are inherently superficial due to its utterly repetitive nature, and it ends up almost as limited as the rest anyway. Besides, its roots were very close chronologically to those of progressive (then again so was punk, with MC5 etc).

So, of course, there has been some innovation since the early 70's. Someone vaguely mentioned some guitar techniques. That's cool. I do think progressive music was the logical endpoint for truly innovative music though. Never before that had popular music been so thoroughly fused with such seemingly disparate genres. Sure, modal jazz can be said to have taken in classical influence, but on a subtle level and not remotely to the same degree. After the original progressive (and I sometimes place the other eclectic rock styles that sprung from psychedelia like folk rock, jazz rock etc. in the same overall movement, progressive being the absolute furthest this idea could go) bands, I don't think any movements are big enough to be called a revolution of any kind.


Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Yes, like with every other genre, it evolved, the idear that punk was just a () in rock music is absurd, it influenced wave, it evolved into hardcore, it fused with elements from ska ect. ect.
Many of the band that today would be referred to as alternative, from Bjørk, to Green Day, have roots in punk.
And seen from a prog view it's obvious to mention TMV, they came directly from a punk/hardcore background.

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock. Reggae and certain African styles fusing with rock was part of what constituted "new wave". I suppose those styles more easily gelled with the minimalist rock of that era, and Bjork's first band was certainly part of that. She quickly developed into her unique art pop style though, which derives itself more from progressive.


-------------
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: April 14 2013 at 23:27
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Considering where music came from in its history and the whole upper class thing falling apart in the 20th century, in the end, "punk" is a complete polar opposite of classical music, and as such it has something to offer that is vastly different that could/should help improve the classical ideas.
 
...

All music scenes have some value to them ... in many ways the "punk" thing, just like "rap" is not quite a musical scene, as much as it is a "social" scene, in its words and expressions ... and sometimes, in my view of things, this tends to lessen the expression musically ... you're so emotionally involved in screaming at your friend, girlfriend, or mom, or dad, that you forget the music ... and how to play ... so to speak ... and this is NOT something that is acceptable in music definition and standards in its history!

True, punk was more a social movement than a musical one. The music itself could never, but I think the attitude of punk actually has influenced ultra-modern classical and jazz somewhat. I can't say I've been thrilled with the results, but some probably would say it's refreshing.


-------------
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 01:29
C'mon, didn't they teach you basic set theory in your math class?





Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 05:21
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock.
Naa, Punk is not the same as rock, punk is a part of rock, if you listen to basic rock bands from the early 60 to mid 60's, like Beatles Stones Kinks Animals Yardsbirds ect. ect, they sound nothing like Dead Kennedys or Six Pistols.
Actualy they sound very diffrent, just as diffrent as they do from Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, ect. 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 07:05
Progressive rock means the musical progress of rock. Seems obvious but does seem to become distorted. Effectively this means the harmonic extensions of themes. That tnhis music is found in the context of rock confuses teh issue. Rock is usually regarded as pop (poular, populist). One can hear a tiune, dash home dig out one's guitar and figure a version of a song. This is yer basic roc / pop ideal. Not so easy to do when it's Heart of The Sunrise.

There are many recordings from Bowie's to ELP's that have more attention paid to the composition and the intentions of individuals that are outside the realm of the sing along pop number (which when they turn up and are not too daft) are well worth it. But these are usually disposable and part of a deliberate fashion.

Curiously the more in depth composition and arrangement in rock (the '70s prog era) involves these same zeit geist popular culture characteristics.

particularly amusing associations are the (inevitable) negative views of for example, Asia versus Yes. Asia incorporate standard symphonic prog rock harmonic principles but do 'em quick. Yes develop themes. Asia has choruses, Yes have refrains (a restatement of a theme e.f Heart of the Sunrise).

So progressive is the incorporation of musical ideas that are extended from stated verse ofr chorus ideaswithin and then beyond standard rock.

Punk was regressive, new wave was the progressive from of punk as ambition in music cannot be stultified even by reactionary rock types (punk, grunge, 80s pop or the latest "classic" rock format - a comfort zone marketing device).

One other matter is the objective versus subjective appraisal. Very often someone thinks "it's good.  I like it". or the opposite for the matter. Like either sentence has much to do with other. This is our perception and ego view becoming one when they should be separate. If some one likes, say 90125 does that mean someone can appraise it from an opinion. Probably not, Bt if we can't distinguish fact from fiction. Detached, even academic objective appraisal has got to be clear from happy memories (subjective emotional). Frankly who cares about my associations. What a review reader needs to know is who, what and how.

Academic? How very Rock and roll.  ;) Well, this is progressive rock. One has to move on and this is how it's done, musical development. Use of the little grey cell.

To be fair and readable it is good to have both but not a mash up.


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 07:26

If emotions dosent matter, and you should not reflect your associations, art becomes a studie, like mathematics.

How very boring and sad, because in that case You have lost all conections between the art, and the world it is reflecting. 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 07:41
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

I think you have it precisely backward. I'm giving perspective of my understanding of why it's called "prog". Where exactly do I say what you have to call it?
Here:
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Look, its "Prog" not "Progressive". in the 90s, we froze the term
Which is a good deomonstration that you don't know how to marshal evidence to support a case. 

Read the title of this discussion: "Misinterpreting the term 'prog'". It's stating that it's a term. To which chamberry adds, as qualification: 
Originally posted by chamberry chamberry wrote:

Why do we take the term "prog rock" as being "progressive", that is to say, as if it was the only rock genre that progresses, that's evolved, that never stagnates, that's always new, different, from what "normal music" is?
Then I say "it's [the term is] 'Prog' not 'Progressive'" aand that we froze the term, and you twice site that as evidence that I'm trying to mandate a term for that item. You can't just site the part of the text that you repeatedly misinterpret as proof that somebody said something you interpretted. A "term" applies to the term, and not necessarily the item it refers to.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Excuse me, froze?  You can call it what you want but you can't insist on your interpretation.
That's rich coming from a guy who's now trying to imply that when he interprests "freeze a term" to mean mandate a term, it is evidence that "freeze a term" means just that. 

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Prog never froze in my eyes or that of others.
Again, confusing a term for the referent. The term was frozen from "progressive". Again, this is about a term, not all possible nomenclature.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Prog rock fests have had bands like DT or Opeth over, so I don't derive my understanding from a 'strawman' but from the contemporary position of prog.
And, DT was considered by the hip alternative crowd as a throwback to 70s pretention, so it was hardly "progressive" in a sense that would have been unobjectionable to everybody.

You're really not making your case. But you are right, PA does claim that prog is simply a shortening. 
Originally posted by PA PA wrote:

Progressive rock (often shortened to prog or prog rock) is a form of rock music that evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a "mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility.
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition

However, even if we take that quote as a definition of "Prog", there are issues with then extending that to what chamberry implies that the word "progressive" implies. Becuase if it is simply whatever music was most progressive, than it simply was an evolution of music, itself, it would not be a form. The froth on the wave is the froth on the wave and not a "form". If Progressive Rock is granted as a form, then it is not simply whatever music is most progressive. What "form" could be taken from a specification of a music that "progresses" all the time? So even though it implies its a simple shortening, it is actually using the tag name "progressive" to indicate the same thing that "prog" does: A form originated at a certain time and context. Thus again, to unpack "progressive music" from that is needless. 

So I will grant that PA itself does not know how to stay out of this fight.

[QUOTE=rogerthat]It is not a question of unpacking, it is what it is.  Once again, "Ultimate Progressive Rock Discography"....the guidelines describe what is progressive rock. It has never been unbundled. Rather, music in the vein of 70s progressive rock as well as new progressive rock are all recognized as progressive rock, prog/prog rock in short.
Okay, so why does PA contain "Post-rock". How can something "post-rock" be "Progressive rock". Somewhere we either have PA telling people who went to the trouble of calling it "post-rock" that whatever they think, it is rock, or they must consider it as rock, or it's PA branching out from "progressive rock" to things that share characteristics of classic progressive rock. And also fit the category that if you like some of the things like X you might like Y. So again, it mainly centers around people with similar tastes exchanging opinions about music. 

In that case, you don't need a manifesto that all your music is the most "progressive", just a tag for people to find it, and discuss musical tastes. And give hints to other people about what bands are similar to the ones they like. Such a tag was synthesized in the usenet newsgroup alt.music.progressive. It's called "prog". That term was frozen from the term "progressive" simply because a lot of the people who liked a certain style of music found alt.music.progressive under that name. As I mentioned before, the very layout of the site, the various facilities of the site are about people finding that general type of music based on things they already enjoy.  



-------------
-John


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 08:36
Misinterpreting pork, or merely abstaining from it due to religion.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 09:17
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

If emotions dosent matter, and you should not reflect your associations, art becomes a studie, like mathematics.

How very boring and sad, because in that case You have lost all conections between the art, and the world it is reflecting. 
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

[/QUOT


Not at all. Just that they should not become mixed up, merely identifiable, distinct. Especially if someone is communicating abstract ideas to others.

Clarity is all.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 10:28
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Then I say "it's [the term is] 'Prog' not 'Progressive'" aand that we froze the term, and you twice site that as evidence that I'm trying to mandate a term for that item. You can't just site the part of the text that you repeatedly misinterpret as proof that somebody said something you interpretted. A "term" applies to the term, and not necessarily the item it refers to.



I got you the first time round, I know you are referring to the term.  But if you freeze the term prog from progressive rock, that implies that you have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons.  And that is what I referred to.  I don't agree at all that it is as discontinuous as you are making it out to be.  Can you name some bands that are included in progressive rock - barring genres like prog related or crossover - but don't have anything to do with according to you?  It is ok if you don't see it my way, but you pointedly said that "it's prog, not progressive" as if there is something mistaken about the usage progressive rock.  And that is what I am objecting to.   We will all individually make up our minds about what we want to call it but there's nothing assertive about "it".  It's not a "this or that" and, sorry, but your idea of prog as NOT being an abbreviation of progressive rock is not as widely recognised as you think it is.  

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

And, DT was considered by the hip alternative crowd as a throwback to 70s pretention, so it was hardly "progressive" in a sense that would have been unobjectionable to everybody.


So who is this hip alternative crowd, what do they say and what bearing do any of their views have on this discussion anyway?   There are too many assumptions in the way you are setting out your viewpoints.  I do not know anything about altprogressive and am not inclined to find out and least of all about what keyboard warriors from either side, be they the hipsters or the purists, had to say about this topic on that website.   DT is widely recognized as progressive rock and at the same time is clearly seen as something distinct from 70s prog and bearing more relation to Rush, Queenrsyche and Metallica.  A lot of those who are fond of 70s prog get off on DT because of the metal elements.   So it is a valid example of a contemporary prog rock band that represents a large measure of evolution from 70s prog.  
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:


So I will grant that PA itself does not know how to stay out of this fight.



There is no fight per se because there is no hard and fast understanding of prog rock.  Too many branches of prog developed independently and indifferent of each other in different countries to view it as just a narrow scene restricted to its era.  Therefore PA allows any music that sounds heavily like prog rock from the 70s and progressive - as in innovative - rock music to the extent it fits with the website's requirements.   It, like most of us, recognises that this is extremely subjective.  You on the other hand are pretty insistent that prog should be decoupled from progressive as it no longer has anything to do with any progressive qualities.  I don't agree, that is, I don't see the need for this decoupling at all.   Prog rock originated as something of a progression on the rock music of the time, therefore music that progresses the rock of today also makes a good case for itself as does anything else that can be stylistically identified with whatever prog rock has been made up to this point.

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:


Okay, so why does PA contain "Post-rock". How can something "post-rock" be "Progressive rock".


Duh, the same way as jazz rock can be progressive rock.   It doesn't have to have prog as a suffix (for in that case Zeuhl and Canterbury would be disqualified).   Secondly...

Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:


Somewhere we either have PA telling people who went to the trouble of calling it "post-rock" that whatever they think, it is rock, or they must consider it as rock, or it's PA branching out from "progressive rock" to things that share characteristics of classic progressive rock. And also fit the category that if you like some of the things like X you might like Y. So again, it mainly centers around people with similar tastes exchanging opinions about music.


No, it's not about what music somebody likes and would want to see on PA.  Rather, it's because not all post rock fits in progressive rock but some does and that music is sub categorised as prog rock.  You are looking at prog rock and post rock as mutually exclusive, while PA doesn't, that's the different.  Same with jazz rock, not all jazz rock would be accepted as prog here but some of it is.  Not all metal that gets called prog metal by metalheads would necessarily qualify here.   Qualification is based on subjective considerations of the sub genre teams but totally NOT on their likes and dislikes, rather on whether they can hear musical characteristics that, according to them, warrant inclusion in that sub genre.    




Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 11:16
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock.
Naa, Punk is not the same as rock, punk is a part of rock, if you listen to basic rock bands from the early 60 to mid 60's, like Beatles Stones Kinks Animals Yardsbirds ect. ect, they sound nothing like Dead Kennedys or Six Pistols.
Actualy they sound very diffrent, just as diffrent as they do from Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, ect. 

He is right that it is rock but then you could just as well argue that Elvis Priesley was rock of some sort and thereby discount the entire Beatles-led revolution.  It is very different; the attitude changed pretty drastically.  And attitude is not just something social...it reflects in the music, through the emotions.  There was something no holds barred about punk aggression, maybe not so noticeable in the early punk rock but more so in its offshoots, like at no other time before in rock.   And hand in hand began the search for guitar tones that may not have been favoured in classic rock but were useful to convey these new flavours, the complicated (!) riffs, etc.  Unfortunately, the attitude is also its weakness and I think a lot of potential in punk-based ideas remains unfulfilled because they have to try so hard to make it not-prog. 


Posted By: axeman
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 11:24
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I got you the first time round, I know you are referring to the term.  But if you freeze the term prog from progressive rock, that implies that you have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons.
Does. not. follow, ...other than trivially. 

All terms worthy of the name, exclude things. But as a marker , it excludes nothing definitively. You understand what a "definition" is don't you. It means it has limits(fine). That we must talk in words and words must have landing points called definitions, never implies that things aren't in many cases, continuous and fluid. 

That's one of the hard part about critical discussion, for emphasis and control of scope we must chop things up smaller than they might otherwise be construed to be. You can put one thing in a separate bulletpoint, but it doesn't mean it's totally unrelated to the other bulletpoints. 

Mainly, the thing that "prog" excludes is some sort of claim that this body of music is "progressive" by whatever critical standards of "progress". It's not meant to exclude music, but the unnecessary claim that each person who enjoys prog is a fan of whatever is deemed to be "progressive" at the time. 

But let's take your inanity on its face. You must mean certain things and not others when you say "progressive rock" because otherwise you wouldn't take Opeth or Dream Theater to be more indicative of progressive rock/music then say, The Fixx. Because if you exclude The Fixx then you "have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons." It's a bad start when you say that excluding something from a category for some unspecified reason is questionable. 

But, if that makes me bad, then it make you bad. If it makes me exclusive, then it makes you exclusive. If you can't exclude any band or music from the term "progressive", then DT and Opeth aren't particular examples of "progressive rock", because all exclusion can be called into question to be in the same "judgmental" vein that you are implying. 

Now, I have no doubts that you can misconstrue a beaut out of that, since almost everything you have read into what I have written has been your own invention. 


-------------
-John


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 13:13
Originally posted by The Mystical The Mystical wrote:

I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.


There are only a few real progressive rock bands anyway. It was really a phenomenom that died out around '74 or '75. By this time it had really more or less runit's course. The rest was rehash or something else. I heard an interview with Fish on a Montréal FM station back in '82 or '83 when they played here for the first time and he downplayed this progressive rock thing. He was actually saying that the band owed a lot to punk. I was at the show and it was like seeing Rush. There were tons of Rush heads there.

So, I guess like a lot of bands that fall under this unfortunate and inaccurate label. There was an article about the latest inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ( shame? ) and the journalist listed some bands who should never be inducted and referred to "progressive" rock as niether. I think he hit the nail on the head sort of unintentionally. It's just mish mash music. Let's just bolt anything regarless of style, rhythm, time signature, tempo and then put it to confusing lyrics and then the kids will go for it. That was the axiom back in the seventies. I guess it helped that guys like Emerson, the Shulman Brothers and others were learned musicians with at least some formal training.

Of all the prog bands I think Focus was just about the only one or one of the few  who really nailed the concept. They even mocked themselves with the novelty track Hocus Pocus. It was a fool around track that started with the drummer Pierre van der Linden smashing around on the kit with  Jan Akkerman throwing in a riff and then Van Leer adding some bizarre yodelling. Just read that this weekend in a book I found in my library that had an interview with TvL from the early seventies.











-------------
                


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 14:53
Originally posted by uduwudu uduwudu wrote:

...
So progressive is the incorporation of musical ideas that are extended from stated verse ofr chorus ideaswithin and then beyond standard rock.

Punk was regressive, new wave was the progressive from of punk as ambition in music cannot be stultified even by reactionary rock types (punk, grunge, 80s pop or the latest "classic" rock format - a comfort zone marketing device).
...
 
Still that is way too simplistic, as there are just as many simple things in "progressive" music as there are anywhere else. The difference lies in its CONTEXT, and what the music works for and around with ... and the time and place where this came up gave it a social theme that helped identify and explain what the music was about.
 
Thus, the punk, or the rap thing, are not regressive, since they are a part of the same folks that you and I were a part of ... and we should not punish them for their ideas ... it is "progressive" in their very own way ... just not what, GENERALLY, would be considered an "artistic" path.
 
Quote One other matter is the objective versus subjective appraisal. Very often someone thinks "it's good.  I like it". or the opposite for the matter.
...
 
To be able to define this as "MUSIC" that we want to make it important in the annals of music history, the appraisal has to go a bit further than the simplistic and totally subjective conversations that take place here ... but saying that music is "progressive" because the player is using a Ricky, is as bad and off the wall, and the type of discussion that will render this back to the kindergarten of what music is ... an instrument does NOT music define ... the PERSON and the WORK do! And we have to stop thinking of those kinds of idiocies that degenerate the intelligent studies and work about the solid music and work that was created by many folks ... to me, the YES, JT's, the ELP's and many others were the "classical music" of my time ... and some of the work they did was VASTLY superior musically, than a lot of classical music ... and I respect them as such.
 
There is no mis-interpretation of progressive, or prog. Only people that do not get off the "fan" stuff ... too much make up I guess! Embarrassed  ... and a lot of this is easily shown when you can take a piece or two from Gentle Giant, and many times you will find that the composition sense and design is far superior to almost 1600 to 1700 years of known music ... but the rock and bs fans do not have a historical sense or background to have any idea, how IMPORTANT that should be, but is being ignored because of the band they like so much! Doesn't mean I have to love GG, it's not one of my favorites, but the musical sense and design is out of this world and I have a solid appreciation for that just like I did for Frank Zappa 40 years before most people ever heard Penguins swimming around in the bondage of the progressive "definition" with the PA fans!  Confused


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 15:18
I guess the database would lose 3/4 of its bands if it were to bother with prog rock bands only.


-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 18:26
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

This is basically the same as saying "rock eventually fused with ska/reggae too", since again, punk is essentially just basic rock.
Naa, Punk is not the same as rock, punk is a part of rock, if you listen to basic rock bands from the early 60 to mid 60's, like Beatles Stones Kinks Animals Yardsbirds ect. ect, they sound nothing like Dead Kennedys or Six Pistols.
Actualy they sound very diffrent, just as diffrent as they do from Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, ect. 

True, they sound different enough in effect. I don't deny it's existence as a genre. However, it is a huge stretch to say that punk is as different from rock n' roll / garage rock than progressive is from all previous rock.

I would also say the late 60's Beatles music is clearly much farther removed from Elvis than punk is from... well, Elvis, actually.


-------------
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 15 2013 at 19:35
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Does. not. follow, ...other than trivially. 

All terms worthy of the name, exclude things. But as a marker , it excludes nothing definitively. You understand what a "definition" is don't you. It means it has limits(fine). That we must talk in words and words must have landing points called definitions, never implies that things aren't in many cases, continuous and fluid. 

That's one of the hard part about critical discussion, for emphasis and control of scope we must chop things up smaller than they might otherwise be construed to be. You can put one thing in a separate bulletpoint, but it doesn't mean it's totally unrelated to the other bulletpoints. 

Mainly, the thing that "prog" excludes is some sort of claim that this body of music is "progressive" by whatever critical standards of "progress". It's not meant to exclude music, but the unnecessary claim that each person who enjoys prog is a fan of whatever is deemed to be "progressive" at the time. 

But let's take your inanity on its face. You must mean certain things and not others when you say "progressive rock" because otherwise you wouldn't take Opeth or Dream Theater to be more indicative of progressive rock/music then say, The Fixx. Because if you exclude The Fixx then you "have chosen to exclude some music as not befitting the term for whatever reasons." It's a bad start when you say that excluding something from a category for some unspecified reason is questionable. 

But, if that makes me bad, then it make you bad. If it makes me exclusive, then it makes you exclusive. If you can't exclude any band or music from the term "progressive", then DT and Opeth aren't particular examples of "progressive rock", because all exclusion can be called into question to be in the same "judgmental" vein that you are implying. 

Now, I have no doubts that you can misconstrue a beaut out of that, since almost everything you have read into what I have written has been your own invention. 



No, and that is the whole point, there is no hard and fast definition of prog rock.  You cannot come up with a suitable one to encompass all the prog rock of the 70s, let alone prog rock of today (but I'd like to see you try, nevertheless).   So either we can have a situation where some people of similar persuasion as yours make a definition and force it down everybody's throats or to work with a general idea of what could be prog.  

Please don't tell me that your attempts to make a prog rock definition that excludes are based purely on empirical considerations.  No, they are simply based on your impressions of 70s prog (and those impressions themselves may be too heavily influenced by that 70s prog which you liked and not all 70s prog) and you look for other music that seems to share its characteristics.   So on PA too people go by their gut feeling but without trying to limit what prog rock could be.   It is not a "thing", it is a genre of music and you will not convince me that it is dead or has stopped evolving.  That being the case, it would be a terrible thing to freeze what all can be understood to be prog because music subsequently released might contradict such a definition.  Also, anything that is based on gut feelings cannot be imposed.  It is only prog because the respective sub genre teams in PA say so, I absolutely don't have to agree with it.   But enough people agree in any case because not all bands are outliers and life goes on.

Furthermore, prog rock is not just a style, it's an approach  (else, please demonstrate to me the common stylistic aspects of Kraftwerk, Magma and Camel).  So it's not as if prog to include Opeth would have to exclude Fixx.  I don't even know who the latter are but if they release an album later on that has some of the attributes of prog rock, one would have to revise their position on Fixx.   So it's not fixed (!); as the genre keeps changing, so too our understanding of it evolves.   Freezing the term so that it no longer keeps pace with the changing hues of prog is not a good solution.  Rather, it is like imposing a definition for the sake of it. 


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 13:26
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

I guess the database would lose 3/4 of its bands if it were to bother with prog rock bands only.
 
I seriously doubt that ... in fact, I think it would gain many other bands ... but it might force some re-alignment.
 
The biggest offender, is a whole genre defined by a sound effect or two ... and I'm not sure that is a valid designation for a music genre ... let's take some Beethoven and add Phazing and Echo and then call it ... neo-romantic classical music? ... that's just bizarre, off the wall, and sick! And we're allowing that to happen, by some bands that are "supposedly" hard and dark, and there is nothing there ... unplug them ... empty as your stool when you get done ... now let's go back in time and unplug Pink Floyd ... then unplug Genesis ... then unplug ELP ... you still have it ... ohhh ... you can even unplug KC and still have a solid piece of music ... that connection needs to be made, because right now, all of these "progressive" and "prog" folks are not seeing that music history is anything except crap and garbage ... because it is not electric and does not have an effect, and worse, only on PA ... the bass is not a ricky! Even an article on "progressive" instruments ... and I can see both Stanley Clarke and Bootsie looking at each other and us and go ... ohh well ... or a Jaco for that matter ... it's not about the instrument or the sound ... it's about the composer and the artistry of the player ... and we have to come to grips with that ... and a sound effect is not enough!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 13:33
 Too many bands here. People get confused by this site all the time. I mean what does The Mahavishnu Orchestra have to do with Split Enz QuestionErmm

-------------
                


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 16:01
Guitar + bass + drums = rock
Guitar + bass + drums + X = prog (Let X = any instrument other than guitar, bass, or drums)

I'm being entirely facetious here. There is no magical formula that can decide what is prog and what is not prog. But it's still fun to read reactions here. Cool


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 16:20
I'm a musician, and have been playing prog for over 40 years.  Prog is an attitude, a frame of mind.  

I could make killer prog with a kazoo (and did once, when I played Bloomdido's blazing sax solo from Gong's "Master Builder" from memory!  My friends were cracking up!!)

1:28 onwards....




Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 16:37
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

I guess the database would lose 3/4 of its bands if it were to bother with prog rock bands only.
 
I don't know about 3/4 of the bands but many could be excluded...and there are others that could be included.


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 16:38
Originally posted by Vibrationbaby Vibrationbaby wrote:

 Too many bands here. People get confused by this site all the time. I mean what does The Mahavishnu Orchestra have to do with Split Enz QuestionErmm
 
 
Good question..........and we are back to what exactly is 'progressive rock'.
It is obviously very subjective.


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Argonaught
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 20:26
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Vibrationbaby Vibrationbaby wrote:

 Too many bands here. People get confused by this site all the time. I mean what does The Mahavishnu Orchestra have to do with Split Enz QuestionErmm
 
 
Good question..........and we are back to what exactly is 'progressive rock'.
It is obviously very subjective.

Emphatic INDEED to both of your statements

Mahavishnu Orchestra was, at least in the 70s, an archetypal jazz-rock fusion band. In most fusion bands, the "rock" component had primarily to do with the usage of certain instruments that had come from the realm of rock (notably the electric guitar and electric bass). As for the music itself, it was undiluted electric jazz.  

As per PA, fusion is a "progressive rock subgenre". Prog and fusion sure do have one or two things in common (the complexity, the frivolous time signatures and such delicacies), but I am not sure if they are best described this way. Prog is typically better rehearsed, more predictable and often solemn. Fusion relies more on improvisation and is generally more jovial and upbeat. By the way, to my ear the Bruford-Wetton era KC is closer to fusion than to prog. 

BTW, why does the presumably excessive number of bands PA lists bother you?  
   


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 23:43
Wacko Ah -- the old PA argument that is never resolved, never goes away, is extremely subjective ("prog" or "progressive rock" having about as many interpretations as this forum has members), and is thus not worth arguing about.

I've said it often here before: it's a lousy way to categorize music for anything other than personal use. The so-called "category" (it's not a specific genre) is so diverse/inclusive/amorphous/subjective as to be near meaningless.

It meant something which was almost defined once upon a time, but these days (for those who claim to like it) I think it basically equates to "better" -- a subjective (if not arrogant) delineation if ever there was one. For those who deride it, it seems to equate to "weird," "overblown," "pretentious" "overly complex" -- and as those are also subjective concepts, perhaps those interpretations are as good as any. Ermm

I use the term, but I know what I mean when I say it.Wink  In essence, "prog" is what you decide it is when you make prog playlists for yourself on your Ipod. Tongue


-------------
Let the monkey drive.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 16 2013 at 23:55
Originally posted by Vibrationbaby Vibrationbaby wrote:

 Too many bands here. People get confused by this site all the time. I mean what does The Mahavishnu Orchestra have to do with Split Enz QuestionErmm
Geek I can answer that -- both bands featured male humans who were bipedal, roughly bisymmetrical, and equipped with handy opposable thumbs.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT! Shocked


-------------
Let the monkey drive.



Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 17 2013 at 04:11
Originally posted by Peter Peter wrote:

Wacko Ah -- the old PA argument that is never resolved, never goes away, is extremely subjective ("prog" or "progressive rock" having about as many interpretations as this forum has members), and is thus not worth arguing about.

I've said it often here before: it's a lousy way to categorize music for anything other than personal use. The so-called "category" (it's not a specific genre) is so diverse/inclusive/amorphous/subjective as to be near meaningless.

It meant something which was almost defined once upon a time, but these days (for those who claim to like it) I think it basically equates to "better" -- a subjective (if not arrogant) delineation if ever there was one. For those who deride it, it seems to equate to "weird," "overblown," "pretentious" "overly complex" -- and as those are also subjective concepts, perhaps those interpretations are as good as any. Ermm

I use the term, but I know what I mean when I say it.Wink  In essence, "prog" is what you decide it is when you make prog playlists for yourself on your Ipod. Tongue



I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say but we all know that Prog is like Porn i.e. no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it. Yes, some of us know what me mean when we say Prog, but I suspect that body of (cough) older people might reluctantly agree (like Vibrationbaby) that Prog, albeit  in a much narrower exclusive sense than that currently espoused on PA, was practically over as a cutting edge musical development by circa 1979. Don't mean to come across as negative but for me, I kinda agree with Peter that this acceptance or denial of the 'end of Prog' is the kernel at the heart of most debates round these parts y'all.


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 17 2013 at 10:36
^ Thanks for the quote, Lemming. Smile

I should perhaps clarify that while I think the term is fraught with difficulty in its use from individual to individual, and from one generation to another, the last time I checked I could find 99% of the music I'd historically considered "prog rock" on this exhaustive site, along with many other artists who were new to me when I joined, but which fit well within my personal parameters of "prog." (I imagine that is true for almost all of us.)

Now, in the site's efforts to be thorough, and pursue almost every linkage to, and permutation of, "prog," a LOT of other stuff gets listed here too. Sometime the link is obvious to me, sometimes it's not, but the reception of art is subjective -- YOU make the song (or painting, or book) "live." YOU give it its final meaning and flavour when it passes though your unique personal filters. We each put our own stamp on the art we take in. That is unavoidable and good -- that's why art resonates with us and moves us. Your reaction and mine and his are each different, but each is "right."

So this site is a good music resource, but the ultimate arbiter will always be your own ears and emotions. My advice to people who may be confused with the sheer scope and diversity of the site would be to stop getting hung up on terminology (which is always fluid over time and culture), and just accept that, with prog, "results may vary."

If you like "prog," much of the music you like is on here -- as is a lot of other stuff you may well enjoy if you sample it. (Though you won't like it all, or find that it all jibes with your personal prog definition.) That should be good enough.

Music is ultimately personal. It's okay if we differ. (We have to -- no one else is me.)   What it "is" cannot be found, defined, or pinned into place by our mere words. It moves, it lives -- it is a virus that mutates symbiotically within each host. It changes you -- you change it.

Stop talking -- listen. Fill your heart. Smile


-------------
Let the monkey drive.



Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 17 2013 at 13:17
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


...
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say but we all know that Prog is like Porn i.e. no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it. Yes, some of us know what me mean when we say Prog, but I suspect that body of (cough) older people might reluctantly agree (like Vibrationbaby) that Prog, albeit  in a much narrower exclusive sense than that currently espoused on PA, was practically over as a cutting edge musical development by circa 1979. Don't mean to come across as negative but for me, I kinda agree with Peter that this acceptance or denial of the 'end of Prog' is the kernel at the heart of most debates round these parts y'all.
 
I'm gonna take this one home and just enjoy the heck out of it ... my neighbor at work is a guitar player in a band, and he always brings the Musicians Friend monthly with him, or I do ... and we always share the "music porn".
 
On top of it, there is more "porn" with a Fender Jazz bass, than a Ricky ... !!!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 17 2013 at 13:43
Originally posted by Peter Peter wrote:

...
Music is ultimately personal. It's okay if we differ. (We have to -- no one else is me.)   What it "is" cannot be found, defined, or pinned into place by our mere words. It moves, it lives -- it is a virus that mutates symbiotically within each host. It changes you -- you change it.

Stop talking -- listen. Fill your heart. Smile
 
I kinda look it ... close to this ... there is one tree in the middle, and we all see it differently, and in the end it's just "angles" on that look, but THERE IS one tree, and it has its own entity ... but it is hard for any of us to describe that entity, as you say, we are not the tree and neither is the tree "us".
 
Taking this further, there is something else in heavy duty meditation that confuses people senseless and prevents them from contniuing their "meditation" studies ... when you reach the "light", you will no longer see any darkness, because you are "inside" that light .... and at that point you "are" the tree, (don't have to be) and your words carry some strength and weight that many people come to understand and appreciate ... however, in a place such as this, with so much cynicism (sometimes guilty!!!) ... and people just standing up for the band they absolutely love, and do not know why ... other than "love Dave's guitar solo" (it's not even the whole song then?) ... as an example of the rock fan like thinking ... and that is NOT exactly a discussion of music! We need to start addressing that a little bit to help define the music better! Not to change the colors that the tree has!
 
To me that is important ... my discussions on music are as objective as I can make them, because I can barely put words to them ... but me telling you that I think that Garry Moore's guitar solo is the craziest ever in "Spirit" in his first album, although not progressive, in the end, everything he does on that guitar solo is less rock oriented than it is "progressive" oriented, though he went with his feelings, instead of Steve Howe's scales!
 
But, honestly, if more people had a better understanding, or listening ability, to also include music that goes back 1000 years, I really think that their ability to define and place what we have come to call "progressive" would be a LOT STRONGER than it is now ... not to say that we have to have all "music journalists", but having all of these folks define it all in terms of the least able musicians, is not going to help put this on the map ... we have to be way better in describing the music, than what Chuck Berry is all about ... and my sense is that the only thing many of these definitions can tell you is that this is Chuck Berry with a chronfullametricggastrictone scale ... ohhhh ... with a Ricky on Bass! And at that point ... the whole thing is down right bizarre, not music anymore and it's meaningless ... and anyone can play it, including your own kid, if he doesn't tell you that dad is s stupid old foggie that likes that old crap!
 
But music history is more than just a "scale", or an instrument ... and until we formulate a massive study on that and show that it deserves to be now in music history other than just a nice memory ... I don't think we can get past these silly, bizarre, off the wall threads ... that have nothing to do with anything except some person's bored ideas that God is framed in a book, not in reality, or in life!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: libertycaps
Date Posted: April 17 2013 at 19:58
I'm gonna go out on a limb and think that "Progressive" is a very subjective term. Wink

-------------
dynaco THE FISHER Marantz Sansui Nakamichi Line Magnetic Oppo Yamaha Dynavector Sumiko Grado Denon Pioneer Advent Klipsch/Crites


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: April 17 2013 at 23:24
The point is how we pick what prog is right, and the word to us, has that sense of strength.  It's a token
of honor we chose to give certain progressive rock, that some may call prog, whether or not we call it
prog or not.

I think the point is that it is our right to say what is good prog or is not....in the sense of being emphatic, like,
that's real fudge, or, that's a real cup of coffee.   Melvin might say some band is prog, and I am glad he
likes progressive rock in general to call it prog, in that way, it honors me and prog at large.  But, is it
really prog to me?  Nah, probably not.

You guys need to study some serious graduate level linguistics before you can start an academic
sense of what you are saying in any serious language focused way.  There are all kinds of qualifiers
and criteria that categories and sets, about thirty different linguistic terms that have no parallel in 
words in other fields.  Then you can define what prog.  But I think this thought is an existential understanding
of why we defend the word, and defend our bands, that fit into the category, and defend others rights
to use the term any way they want.  It helps our cause in the end.  Because, we are after all, a subset
of a much, much larger group of rock music, much of which we probably don't like too much.



-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 18 2013 at 04:30
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

The point is how we pick what prog is right, and the word to us, has that sense of strength.  It's a token
of honor we chose to give certain progressive rock, that some may call prog, whether or not we call it
prog or not.

I think the point is that it is our right to say what is good prog or is not....in the sense of being emphatic, like,
that's real fudge, or, that's a real cup of coffee.   Melvin might say some band is prog, and I am glad he
likes progressive rock in general to call it prog, in that way, it honors me and prog at large.  But, is it
really prog to me?  Nah, probably not.

You guys need to study some serious graduate level linguistics before you can start an academic
sense of what you are saying in any serious language focused way.  There are all kinds of qualifiers
and criteria that categories and sets, about thirty different linguistic terms that have no parallel in 
words in other fields.  Then you can define what prog.  But I think this thought is an existential understanding
of why we defend the word, and defend our bands, that fit into the category, and defend others rights
to use the term any way they want.  It helps our cause in the end.  Because, we are after all, a subset
of a much, much larger group of rock music, much of which we probably don't like too much.



Some valid points there certainly but if nothing else, these forums are testimony to the futility of a satisfactory definition of Prog. I really don't want an academic sense of the arts, least of all music thank you.Wink
I'm 50 years old (yes, that matters) and might best illustrate the dichotomy at the heart of such discussions this way:
I like Echolyn and Argent, but not equally.
I think Echolyn's music is better composed and that they are better musicians
I think Echolyn are a very adventurous, innovative and challenging rock band who are clearly influenced and inspired by Prog Rock bands
I think Argent are a Prog Rock band

Yes, all of the foregoing statements are unashamedly subjective, BUT there are a LOT of people on these forums who had their formative years circa 1970-79 that have a very similar take on what they regard as Prog. It goes without saying that the more good music we can celebrate on PA the better, but let's not lose sight of the fact that:

the further you get from the past, the more concrete and plausible it seems --but as you approach the present, it inevitably seems incredible (Salman Rushdie)


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: stegor
Date Posted: April 18 2013 at 14:05
I know it when I hear it. It may not match what you know when you hear it, but that doesn't matter.
Humans have this urge to organize things, some more than others. Some obsess over it and insist that others organize things the same way they do. I'm content to have my own organization.
I love a lot of music that I don't consider Prog.
I despise a lot of music that I do consider Prog.
I think Pere Ubu is Prog, and I love them, but I don't think any less of them because they aren't considered Prog here. Maybe I like them even more because they are so outrageous and difficult to categorize that they don't even fit in with Prog!


-------------
http://limpidgreen.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://limpidgreen.bandcamp.com/


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 19 2013 at 09:10
I listen to the birds. Seriously. I don't even have an ipod. Hate the things. Saw a girl almost hit by a caryesterday with one of those things on.




-------------
                


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 19 2013 at 10:00
Originally posted by Vibrationbaby Vibrationbaby wrote:

I listen to the birds. Seriously. I don't even have an ipod. Hate the things. Saw a girl almost hit by a caryesterday with one of those things on.


I'm constantly with headphones on. Should a car hit me I will finish playing Interstellar overdrive on bass with Syd Barrett and Rick Wright in the prog's paradise

-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 20 2013 at 15:31
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

...
You guys need to study some serious graduate level linguistics before you can start an academic
sense of what you are saying in any serious language focused way.  There are all kinds of qualifiers
and criteria that categories and sets, about thirty different linguistic terms that have no parallel in 
words in other fields.  Then you can define what prog.
...
 
I actually have come to think, that because everything is a database here or anywhere else, that this that you suggest will never be possible ... and the whole lot of this music, like so much music in the histroy of mankind that no one ever heard, gets wasted and trashed and gone ... replaced by another music!
 
Such is life! Another flower bloomed over there!
..
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

...  But I think this thought is an existential understanding of why we defend the word, and defend our bands, that fit into the category, and defend others rights to use the term any way they want.  It helps our cause in the end.  Because, we are after all, a subset of a much, much larger group of rock music, much of which we probably don't like too much.
 
For this to happen, as I've said many times, it has to get out of the "fan" thing ... and get into the poop thing a lot more ... and when the poop hits the fan, we then have the option of spreading it, or making it "art" ... if all we do is clean it up, or worse, leave it in Jean Genet style ... then I really think that we will be in for a hard time and lack of acceptance. Wel,, at least Sartre fought for Genet ... but I'm not sure that Mosh is enough, and too many folks are not interested ... but I would love to see PA take a serious interest in that ... but I doubt they can or will, or that any of them will have the time ... but I can tell you that Dean would definitly be in charge of the stuff about London and surrounding areas!

I would only be good at the quotidian studies ... much of which is something that a lot of people here have a horrible aversion to ... and ignore the lyrics of most of these things! But it only takes the fun, satire like things in Caravan, for folks to think that lyrics can be silly and about ... _______________ ! Somehow that is an issue ... and we would probably have to make a call on the value of the lyrics in the totality of the work, because a lot of worl out there tries to be important ... and sometimes the nature of it is so trivial as to make it singlular, individual and eccentric, and no history of the arts, is exclusively about that!
 
"Prog" is ok with me, and should be defined as a further extension of "progressive" music ... and hopefully, one day, this will be accepted and understood properly. But not all "prog" is anything more than just mere top ten material!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 13:11
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

The point is how we pick what prog is right, and the word to us, has that sense of strength.  It's a token
of honor we chose to give certain progressive rock, that some may call prog, whether or not we call it
prog or not.
I think the point is that it is our right to say what is good prog or is not....in the sense of being emphatic, like,
that's real fudge, or, that's a real cup of coffee.   Melvin might say some band is prog, and I am glad he
likes progressive rock in general to call it prog, in that way, it honors me and prog at large.  But, is it
really prog to me?  Nah, probably not.
You guys need to study some serious graduate level linguistics before you can start an academic
sense of what you are saying in any serious language focused way.  There are all kinds of qualifiers
and criteria that categories and sets, about thirty different linguistic terms that have no parallel in 
words in other fields.  Then you can define what prog.  But I think this thought is an existential understanding
of why we defend the word, and defend our bands, that fit into the category, and defend others rights
to use the term any way they want.  It helps our cause in the end.  Because, we are after all, a subset
of a much, much larger group of rock music, much of which we probably don't like too much.


I agree with this sentiment very much. Linguistics and 'coining' phrases or terms is tricky business. Well said clever Brainstormer!!

-------------
The holy triforce of sound: DAC+AMP+Headphones = sonic joy and perfection for your music. ;)


Posted By: AreYouHuman
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 19:01
Originally posted by dysoriented dysoriented wrote:


Originally posted by The Mystical The Mystical wrote:

I'm not really bothered by the label of 'Progressive Rock". I just love most of the music under this umbrella.

Haha, I'm with you, this is all so serious. Good music is good music, the label is just a bunch of letters :)

Yeah, I'm with you guys on this one.


Posted By: AreYouHuman
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 19:11
Originally posted by stegor stegor wrote:

I know it when I hear it. It may not match what you know when you hear it, but that doesn't matter.

Holy crap! Prog is like pornography!


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: April 28 2013 at 12:08
prog is like porn cause everyone has their own, distorted view of what it really is. this has been happening for so long and actually a lot of people don't even know what the term prog means or have never heard of it, especially in my world. For instance, when someone asks me ' hey so what music do you listen to?' and I of course reply ' well, I listen to a lot of prog or progressive music.' and more often than not the other person is dumbfounded. 'PROG?! What the f**k is that?

So when I have to describe prog to someone for them to get a clear understanding of what the term means and essentially is I say that the term prog refers to a style of music that is highly instrumental with an epic virtuaso nature that can, and usually does, extend over 10min. I try my best not to give this bloated big response for someone to understand the term cause I know more cases than not it will scar off an individual, but when I am trying to impress a girl I go all out baby!!!

-------------
The holy triforce of sound: DAC+AMP+Headphones = sonic joy and perfection for your music. ;)


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: April 28 2013 at 15:01
Originally posted by progbethyname progbethyname wrote:

prog is like porn cause everyone has their own, distorted view of what it really is. this has been happening for so long and actually a lot of people don't even know what the term prog means or have never heard of it, especially in my world. For instance, when someone asks me ' hey so what music do you listen to?' and I of course reply ' well, I listen to a lot of prog or progressive music.' and more often than not the other person is dumbfounded. 'PROG?! What the f**k is that?

So when I have to describe prog to someone for them to get a clear understanding of what the term means and essentially is I say that the term prog refers to a style of music that is highly instrumental with an epic virtuaso nature that can, and usually does, extend over 10min. I try my best not to give this bloated big response for someone to understand the term cause I know more cases than not it will scar off an individual, but when I am trying to impress a girl I go all out baby!!!


I just call it "the music where the only limitation is there are no limitations". I don't think that's always true, but it sounds cool. I also expound on the description more, depending on who I'm talking to.


Posted By: Second Life Syndrome
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 00:06
"Prog is not a genre or style. Prog won’t tell you how to live or what to wear. Prog is not about

money or fame. Prog is simply the culmination of all music brought to its greatest possible 

breaking point and, if done right, even further. A grand melting pot where nothing is off limits; 

and all it takes is an open mind, a lofty sense of ambition, and true passion for what music is 

and can be."  I saw this quote the other day, and I've come to agree with it more and more. 

However, I think the original poster in this thread is mistaken: Prog is not necessarily about 

music going through changes (i.e., eras), but is about a single artist/band on a single album 

revealing their souls without pre-set structures, methods, or rules.  Prog is about freedom and

creativity and utilizing all the tools at a band's disposal.  I could go on and on, but I won't.  




Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 10:50
Originally posted by Second Life Syndrome Second Life Syndrome wrote:

<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">"Prog is not a genre or style. Prog won’t tell you how to live or what to wear. Prog is not about</span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">money or fame. Prog is simply the culmination of all music brought to its greatest possible </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">breaking point and, if done right, even further. A grand melting pot where nothing is off limits; </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">and all it takes is an open mind, a lofty sense of ambition, and true passion for what music is </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">and can be."  I saw this quote the other day, and I've come to agree with it more and more. </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">However, I think the original poster in this thread is mistaken: Prog is not necessarily about </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">music going through changes (i.e., eras), but is about a single artist/band on a single album </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">revealing their souls without pre-set structures, methods, or rules.  Prog is about freedom and</span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;">creativity and utilizing all the tools at a band's disposal.  I could go on and on, but I won't.  </span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 11.1875px;"></span>


Well this is very well put. :) I like the line where you say it takes a lofty sense of ambition cause its true!! Some prog you gotta work at (listen to quite a bit) to get the full appreciation and understanding. That takes ambition baby

-------------
The holy triforce of sound: DAC+AMP+Headphones = sonic joy and perfection for your music. ;)


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 10:51
Lol. Look at the nice tech wall paper there!! Ha ha!! ^^

-------------
The holy triforce of sound: DAC+AMP+Headphones = sonic joy and perfection for your music. ;)


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 15:04
Originally posted by Second Life Syndrome Second Life Syndrome wrote:

"Prog is not ....
 
Wow ... we got a new prophet amidst us!
 
LOL


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 17:07
According to Zappa, I'm pretty sure it's just words, right?


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 17:18
Originally posted by Metalmarsh89 Metalmarsh89 wrote:

According to Zappa, I'm pretty sure it's just words, right?


Zappa? More like Hamlet. LOL


Posted By: Second Life Syndrome
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 17:20
As much as I'd like to take credit, that isn't my quote.  I saw it on a Facebook group named "Proggers" or "Progradar".  I follow both of those, but I can't remember which one posted it.  However, I completely agree with it, and it simply put into words some of my own thoughts.  Prog is about unrestrained spirit.  That's slightly vague and abstract, but, then again, the soul of prog is getting to be a deeper and more complex thing the more I contemplate it.  


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 06:48
Originally posted by Metalmarsh89 Metalmarsh89 wrote:

According to Zappa, I'm pretty sure it's just words, right?
No, that was the Bee Gees.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 08 2013 at 08:28
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

I'm a musician, and have been playing prog for over 40 years.  Prog is an attitude, a frame of mind.  

I could make killer prog with a kazoo (and did once, when I played Bloomdido's blazing sax solo from Gong's "Master Builder" from memory!  My friends were cracking up!!)

...
 
I would like to have you listen to ... PDQ Bach's Seasonings 1/2 Tsp Oratorio ... when you get done, and yes, this is a real piece of music, let me know if you are in one piece!
 
Sometimes, progressive has a magnificent sense of humor but it's not at PA without a sub-genre! Tongue


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk