Print Page | Close Window

Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?

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=95112
Printed Date: August 22 2019 at 23:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
Posted By: kingcrimsonfan
Subject: Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 10:48
This video should explain this argument, but, my personal views on this is that these new symphonic "prog" rock bands are not necessarily bad, but, they are not pushing the boundaries like bands like King Crimson, Van der graaf Generator, and Porcupine Tree. It is kind of ticking me off that some of these "prog bands" want to play it safe and stay to the typical prog rock cliche. This is not my video. This is a video done by Darren Lock and you can find him on youtube if you are interested in his other videos. I also want to hear everyone else's opinions on how progressive in nature is "prog" in the modern era.

Here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/V44jK3K9hMM


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



Replies:
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:09
90% of modern 'prog' bands play it safe and are cliche-ridden (and that includes some current avant-prog bands). I've found that the more original the band is, the less anyone will pay attention to them. However, the same band 20 years later will be praised as so important and influential. Go figure.

-------------
Magma America Great Make Again


Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:21
Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.

When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.

Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:22
Sorry I can't get Y.T. to work. I haven't heard quite enough of the modern era. A few bands I listen to started in the early90's. White Willow and a few others, but not many. What is your definition of progressive? There are many different aspects to consider about the definition when it is in reference to music. Progressive Jazz to a musician is easily explained in simple terms of playing outside the melody. Playing outside the melody is expanding the sound and complexity of the music and so it can also be said that the act itself is to move foward. In Progressive Rock the ideology spells out the need to incorporate influences of Classical/Jazz/Folk/Asian music and even Blues occasionally ..to your own creations or writings. Usually when a musician is hired to compose for theatre or strictly performing, that combination of elements often exists. A theme is created along with sometimes a sequence of musical reprise..which is connected to the musical characteristics of progressive rock.
 
Being so called ..progressive on your instrument is not limited to 1 style only. It doesn't go without saying and not all of the time because some of the most amazing progressive sax solos are found in Pop songs. The reason being that musicians , if experienced and devoted..can add progressive playing to almost any style of music except Classical which is always encouraged to follow the transcribed manuscript out of respect and remorse to the composers. That being the most logical reason for reflections of Classical music being merely incorporated to a Rock music structure within the sound itself and that becoming what is defined as progressive in rock.
 
Regarding King Crimson...many of the musicians (not just Fripp), were students/followers of Classical and Jazz music. The combinations of everyone's style of playing/approach was scattered and when cemented as a unit sometimes charted a different type of innovative sound. Bruford was actually a kind of Classical drummer who was interested in playing Jazz. That added a unique sound to the band. Bands in the present ..not pushing boundaries may have to do with the lack of interest in just letting go of themselves in the studio. Maybe they DO cling to formulas/ideas of the past and dismiss experimentation. I'm not totally sure. Some musicians express a refusal to repeat or even listen to innovators of the past. This doesn't work either, but some musicians are under the impression that it does. You might get the impression they are repeating what other's did in the 70's , while in fact what musician's were doing in the 70's was about a concept of moving foward.
 
The well known prog bands like YES, Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and ELP were very diverse from each other. Why would that be? Why would that reality be so easy to exist?  They had devoted long hours to it, but were confident about the outcome of sounding original. The reason being that they knew what path to follow and that didn't take them on a musical course which led to sounding like another band. If they based one of their prog albums around a period piece, the music would be condensed for a 5 or 3 piece band..which meant lots of rehearsal time in making it sound full. Sometimes even adding an orchestra for good measure. If not, there would be sections of elements in sound that derived from the 60's such as feedback from an organ (instead of Hendrix guitar) or a signature line in a Camel song that was based around a pentatonic scale. Such as one which you may have heard only briefly in a Jefferson Airplane song , yet cleaned up a bit and more pronounced. It's all about past elements contributing to new ones that evolve from being inspired. If that's not happening today, then that would be the reason why you personally do not hear anything very creative.


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:56
Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.

When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.

Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.
Exactly.  Thank you for saving me the time to write essentially the same thing.


-------------
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: Rottenhat
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:16
Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.

When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.

Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.
Exactly.  Thank you for saving me the time to write essentially the same thing.

Yes, that is my opinion too. Progressive rock is a strange name. Progressing to where? More complex? More hypnotic? More grandiose? Experimental rock would maybe have been a better name.




-------------
Language is a virus from outer space.

-William S. Burroughs


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:32
No.
 
 
 
 
 
 
...next!


-------------
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."


Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:41
^ What is the first prog album? 

-------------
http://superdensecrushloadfactor.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Superdensecrushloadfactor
http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:45
Of course it is progressive, in the 70's quite a few of the sub genres never existed. It does not all sound like yes or genesis.This is such a tired subject it should be banned from the forum, along with that other thriller.......who was the first progressive rock band. 


Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:45
Smile

This discussion is not progressing...



-------------
Language is a virus from outer space.

-William S. Burroughs


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:00
Originally posted by irrelevant irrelevant wrote:

^ What is the first prog album? 
Reported

-------------
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: cstack3
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:10
On of my favorite replies to this question comes from John Wetton in this interview:

http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_John_Wetton_in_Big_Bang_Magazine" rel="nofollow - http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_John_Wetton_in_Big_Bang_Magazine

AL: It's hard to have a prog context at hand, when you write a song on your own, anyway... 


JW: Yes, exactly so. Prog stuff tends to happen in the rehearsal room. You get a drummer and a keyboard player involved, and they start extemporising on themes. I mean, I think that prog probably came about somewhere where American jazz and blues hit European classical music. I think that's how prog was born. The father was European classical music, and the mother was American blues, and the offspring was something we call progressive music. I don't think as a generic term it works anymore. Because it's not progressive, in fact it's more regressive. 


AL: It promised too much, I think... 


JW: It promised too much, yeah. And also, now it's back to everyone... Everyone who wants to be progressive, in inverted comas, want to use mellotrons, Marshall amps and Rickenbacker basses, you know, it's all back to 1973, which is hardly progressive. So it's very much regressive. But it seems that progressive has become a generic term for a style of music which involves time changes, classical moods... 


AL: Sophisticated rock, in a way... 


JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned.



Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:13
It's  certainly 'progressive' compared to the stuff that is released in the mainstream radio friendly pop media  world which is what the majority of people listen to. No one in my family listens to prog other than my son in law ,and 2 friends who are old timers like me. Most think it's too weird....that doesn't necessarily make it 'progresssive' but it certainly isn't mainstream music.


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:15

JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned.

[/QUOTE]
 
Yes...which is why he's been playing the same music, KC , Asia, Uk,  for the last 40 years or so and hasn't 'changed' either.
Wink
 
 


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: progresssaurus
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:17
Originally posted by irrelevant irrelevant wrote:

^ What is the first prog album? 

I like this question, because it is pure religious question LOL

We can ask similarly who is fist human. Pure religious answer is Adam. 

But in real world with real evolution this question has no answer.




Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 15:11
Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock" Wink

Compared to what came before in the world of rock, the early 70's prog bands were a literal "progression", but once the style was defined and bands began playing "in that style" it no longer progressed.  I don't think this is a bad thing as the style that defined "progressive" allows so much creativity within it that bands can spend years exploring all the nuances of the genre and never repeat themselves.  For me "progressive rock" isn't a literal direction of what the music should do, it's simply a description of what the music sounds like.


-------------
https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987


Posted By: progresssaurus
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 15:22
Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock" Wink

I too. But I see now, that neither "Progressive Rock" nor "Art Rock" is ideal. Now I prefer "Some sounds, which I like"


Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 16:11
I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.

The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.


-------------
Magma America Great Make Again


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 16:50
Originally posted by progresssaurus progresssaurus wrote:

Originally posted by irrelevant irrelevant wrote:

^ What is the first prog album? 

I like this question, because it is pure religious question LOL

We can ask similarly who is fist human. Pure religious answer is Adam. 

But in real world with real evolution this question has no answer.


Various Artists (Label Samplers) Wowie Zowie! The World Of Progressive Music album coverSmile

-------------
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 17:39
More relevantly, there are a lot of new bands that ask themselves the same questions about music and place the same limits on themselves as most others past and present, so it's no wonder most prog sounds the same as it did years ago. Many prog musicians today pat themselves on the back for escaping the pop paradigm, never asking themselves "why" or "how." They simply remove the structural limits of pop music. But limits are always there. If they are not conscious limits, they are the subconscious limit of only creating that with which one is familiar. No matter how many styles and instruments they try to add, it's still the same old game if you stick to the same train of thought.

A similar dilemma with avant-garde music. Much of it attempts to simply rebel against musical constructions, and the musicians themselves don't view it as something to be explored, something that can't be stripped of an inherent aesthetic, an inherent effect on the listener.

Such simplistic thought regarding music should be avoided, imo.


Posted By: I-Juca Pirama
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 19:36
Originally posted by kingcrimsonfan kingcrimsonfan wrote:

This video should explain this argument, but, my personal views on this is that these new symphonic "prog" rock bands are not necessarily bad, but, they are not pushing the boundaries like bands like King Crimson, Van der graaf Generator, and Porcupine Tree. It is kind of ticking me off that some of these "prog bands" want to play it safe and stay to the typical prog rock cliche. This is not my video. This is a video done by Darren Lock and you can find him on youtube if you are interested in his other videos. I also want to hear everyone else's opinions on how progressive in nature is "prog" in the modern era.
Here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/V44jK3K9hMM


May I ask you one thing? How has Porcupine tree trepassed boudaries? I mean, I see nothing innovative in the music...


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 20:21
I have never thought of progressive rock as being a category that "pushed boundaries."  Certainly, artists we regard as progressive rock did that, but I don't think that's what it means.

Progressive rock is rock music that progresses.  In other words, it does not maintain the same scheme or pattern throughout its structure.  It is music that visits other passages beyond the common structures  This often involves time signature, tempo, or instrument changes in a given piece.  That is why "Awaken" is a progressive rock song and "Telegraph Road" is not.

I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.


Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 20:53
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.

The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.

Well said!! BTW the new Daft Punk is great...retro babyBig smile


-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]


Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 20:55
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.

Yes and sadly there is a ton of it outthere. So many new bands that surface with prog tags which sound absolutely awful


-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]


Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 22:47
I always thought when I was a kid that progressive rock meant each album should progress and be more daring than the previous one---and Yes did do this more than most groups ---during their peak.


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 22:53
Originally posted by I-Juca Pirama I-Juca Pirama wrote:

Originally posted by kingcrimsonfan kingcrimsonfan wrote:

This video should explain this argument, but, my personal views on this is that these new symphonic "prog" rock bands are not necessarily bad, but, they are not pushing the boundaries like bands like King Crimson, Van der graaf Generator, and Porcupine Tree. It is kind of ticking me off that some of these "prog bands" want to play it safe and stay to the typical prog rock cliche. This is not my video. This is a video done by Darren Lock and you can find him on youtube if you are interested in his other videos. I also want to hear everyone else's opinions on how progressive in nature is "prog" in the modern era.
Here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/V44jK3K9hMM


May I ask you one thing? How has Porcupine tree trepassed boudaries? I mean, I see nothing innovative in the music...


They are the first band to ever idolize and rip-off Pink Floyd and Neu

or something


Posted By: Kazza3
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 23:12
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. The way I see it (which I believed is something I picked up from on a discussion on here once upon a time) is that there are kind of two aspects to bands we group together here- 'progressive' the approach/aesthetic, and 'prog' the genre. 
The classic 70s bands were both- they were called progressive rock due to being seen to be innovating and combining existing music in ways seen as new, progressive or experimental, pushing boundaries (though this is somewhat subjective)- the 'progressive' aspect. But of course, they also naturally shared (to varying extents, mainly talking about the symph bands) a common sound, a common genre- 'prog'.
So now, when we've had this revival of sorts from the 90s through to now, you have bands that are 'progressive' for the same reasons as the 70s bands, and yet they sound nothing like them (RIO/Avant, the prog metal genres, prog electronic, jazz fusion, etc) and then you have bands which aim to sound like the 'prog', like the classic bands of the 70s, completely legitiimately, and are thus part of that genre, and yet don't have the same 'progressive' approach (retro prog bands, a lot of modern symph bands).


There's nothing wrong with either of these approaches- though I dislike the sound of many of the modern 'prog' retro symph bands, due to what I hear as a lack of depth, artificiality/over-produced sound, music-by-numbers, etc- but they're perfectly entitled to do that, many people enjoy it, and it's what bands in other genres do all the time. It's worth pointing out that some of the original 70s bands, such as Yes, themselves moved to this category, in essence.


Posted By: Neo-Romantic
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 23:15
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

On of my favorite replies to this question comes from John Wetton in this interview:

http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_John_Wetton_in_Big_Bang_Magazine" rel="nofollow - http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_John_Wetton_in_Big_Bang_Magazine

AL: It's hard to have a prog context at hand, when you write a song on your own, anyway... 


JW: Yes, exactly so. Prog stuff tends to happen in the rehearsal room. You get a drummer and a keyboard player involved, and they start extemporising on themes. I mean, I think that prog probably came about somewhere where American jazz and blues hit European classical music. I think that's how prog was born. The father was European classical music, and the mother was American blues, and the offspring was something we call progressive music. I don't think as a generic term it works anymore. Because it's not progressive, in fact it's more regressive. 


AL: It promised too much, I think... 


JW: It promised too much, yeah. And also, now it's back to everyone... Everyone who wants to be progressive, in inverted comas, want to use mellotrons, Marshall amps and Rickenbacker basses, you know, it's all back to 1973, which is hardly progressive. So it's very much regressive. But it seems that progressive has become a generic term for a style of music which involves time changes, classical moods... 


AL: Sophisticated rock, in a way... 


JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned.

Not to hijack the conversation or start a feud here, but this sentiment expressed by a veteran of the scene gives voice to the notion that confining prog to a finite number of musical cliches will stagnate and regress the scene. This attitude puts antiquated albums and groups on a pedestal above all modern contributors to the genre. That's an uphill battle they can't expect to win.

What's worse is that it makes it too difficult for talented, innovative groups who have deliberately exited this mold while maintaining high levels of technical and expressive proficiency to gain the approval of the fans who spend their entire musical lives between the years of 1969 and 1976, give or take a year or two on either side. I think namely of the biggest innovators in the progressive metal and tech/extreme prog metal subgenres. I know not everybody here is guilty of this, definitely not even most. I have encountered a few xenophobic posts relating to these subgenres because they chose to embrace styles and textures different from those cultivated by the dinosaur groups. You don't have to like it, but don't you dare say what they're doing is not progressive. They're still pushing the envelope and traversing previously unknown musical frontiers, which is the point of progressive in the first place. Close-minded bigotry is the epitome of regressive behavior in my book.

Ironically, some of those same groups from the "golden age of prog" (a label I loathe for its perpetuation of the false assumption that one generation's music is and always will be better than the output of all others forever) even had a hand in pioneering such styles. Exhibit A: Red.



Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 23:35
I don't see the same level of "sonic experimentation" going on with modern prog bands as we did in the 1970's.   John McLaughlin put the double-neck electric guitar to great effect, electric violin appeared in Mahavishnu Orchestra, King Crimson and other bands, Steve Howe brought the pedal-steel guitar, electric sitar and other strange instruments to the stage, and keyboardists like Wakeman and Hawkens gleefully mixed synth with harpsichord, Mellotron with ancient pipe organ etc.  

Prog seems to be very much a formula these days - electric bass, drums, electric & acoustic guitars, and a modicum of electronic keys, usually patched to emulate the acoustic instruments.  

What it needs is a good, dynamic kick in the arse!  Any ideas?   I'd enjoy seeing more women in prog, musical influences besides European classical and American blues/jazz idioms, and some fresh instrumentation. 


Posted By: Neo-Romantic
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 00:48
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

I don't see the same level of "sonic experimentation" going on with modern prog bands as we did in the 1970's.   John McLaughlin put the double-neck electric guitar to great effect, electric violin appeared in Mahavishnu Orchestra, King Crimson and other bands, Steve Howe brought the pedal-steel guitar, electric sitar and other strange instruments to the stage, and keyboardists like Wakeman and Hawkens gleefully mixed synth with harpsichord, Mellotron with ancient pipe organ etc.  

Prog seems to be very much a formula these days - electric bass, drums, electric & acoustic guitars, and a modicum of electronic keys, usually patched to emulate the acoustic instruments.  

What it needs is a good, dynamic kick in the arse!  Any ideas?   I'd enjoy seeing more women in prog, musical influences besides European classical and American blues/jazz idioms, and some fresh instrumentation. 

Yeah, I'd definitely like to hear some more new sonic textures myself. I mean, with all the new technology nowadays, why on earth do so many groups keep looking backwards? It makes no sense to me.

The only group that comes to mind that I've heard incorporate more modern sounds into their mix is Riverside, and even then I still feel like they're only scratching the surface. The ultra-modern synth sounds on Anno Domini High Definition were truly astounding to me, and I want to hear more of that. Like now! They didn't exploit that nearly as much on SONGS, but I'm inclined to give them a pass as they did a respectable job of balancing the retro sounds with more modern components.



Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 01:02
Originally posted by Neo-Romantic Neo-Romantic wrote:

 

Not to hijack the conversation or start a feud here, but this sentiment expressed by a veteran of the scene gives voice to the notion that confining prog to a finite number of musical cliches will stagnate and regress the scene. This attitude puts antiquated albums and groups on a pedestal above all modern contributors to the genre. That's an uphill battle they can't expect to win.



A point I have tired of making.   It is ok if you want to call something that closely resembles a 70s prog classic as progressive, but to insist that that alone is prog is to miss the point  of prog rock music.  You can see in this thread too the fear that experimentation will only lead to noise being put on record or something to that effect.   There is barely any willingness to consider that it might also open up some possibilities.  So maybe I was mistaken all along for thinking prog rock was an adventurous ride into the unknown.


Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 01:30
Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock" Wink
Seeing as rock is a genre of music (an art form), Art Rock is incredibly redundant and condescending.


-------------
https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 03:12
In my ears there is lots of progression in music, a lot of that music won't make it into PA, due to the fact that PA is interested in music that fits into established boxes, not if its progressive.
That is the downside of the system we got with genre and sub genre.
But that's ok with me, doesn't change the music if its on PA or not


-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 03:26
Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.

When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.

Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.

nothing more needs to be said imo


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 04:29
All that I wanted to say has been pretty well covered already. From ca 1976 and onwards, the rock that was progressive was not to be found in prog (the genre). Punk, post-punk and the avantguarde rock was where it was at. Nowadays I hear most new and refreshing sounds in the electronic lands, and perhaps that is not so odd after all. 
I'm very much looking forward to hear what the future brings. If we want music to progress and give us something new and exciting, it all comes down to our willingness to embrace it - just like our parents and grandparents did oh so long ago. Imagine purchasing Amon Düül ll's Yeti after only having listened to stuff like The Beatles and The Stones. The idea of progressive music - be that in rock or outside of it relies just as much on the audiences, as it does on the artists themselves. We can't expect new progressive pathways opening up, if we never give them the benefit of a doubt - jump outside of our listening habits and go for something out of the ordinary.

And no the prog of today is not progressive, but then again it doesn't have to be does it? Can't an album just be good?


-------------
“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: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 11:09
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

All that I wanted to say has been pretty well covered already. From ca 1976 and onwards, the rock that was progressive was not to be found in prog (the genre). Punk, post-punk and the avantguarde rock was where it was at. Nowadays I hear most new and refreshing sounds in the electronic lands, and perhaps that is not so odd after all. 
I'm very much looking forward to hear what the future brings. If we want music to progress and give us something new and exciting, it all comes down to our willingness to embrace it - just like our parents and grandparents did oh so long ago. Imagine purchasing Amon Düül ll's Yeti after only having listened to stuff like The Beatles and The Stones. The idea of progressive music - be that in rock or outside of it relies just as much on the audiences, as it does on the artists themselves. We can't expect new progressive pathways opening up, if we never give them the benefit of a doubt - jump outside of our listening habits and go for something out of the ordinary.

And no the prog of today is not progressive, but then again it doesn't have to be does it? Can't an album just be good?
It can be good and if your preference has more to do with the album being good, then of course this point you make is surely justified in the logic of liking something overall and not having a concern over it's somewhat catagorization ..which in this case is being progressive. Ideas to develop originality of sound and style originate from experimentation, certain formulas ARE or WERE (in the 70's), applied, concepts within the lyrical approach, and following rules or steps that often reject the input of band members who insist that their new "hook" is original ..when in fact it obviously is not. I am not completely convinced that a majority of musicians today are speaking up at rehearsal and sticking to those rules. Andrew Latimer does on a video of Camel rehearsing...where he stops the keyboardist to point out that what he is playing is a Pink Floyd signature riff and to NOT add it to the song. Tony Banks refused to allow the influence of King Crimson in Genesis...and although that influence may be present at times, it didn't control or dominate the overall structure of the Lamb or S.E.B.T.P.
 
 
The concept of writing differs (maybe?) today and the fine results in the creative department of the 70's bands is no longer present in Prog. What frustrates me about this subject is that it feels as if people are pointing at a blackboard and discussing a list of decades, making cruel thrusts and questioning...."why must we follow the path of the 70's progressive rock bands?" "Why must we concern ourselves over what has been done before by another generation?" First of all ...we are NOT anyway by merely copying them and secondly we seem to place too much emphasis on the fact that IT IS from another generation..coming across with a jealous and foul attitude. WHO BLOODY CARES WHAT YEAR? What difference does it make ..what specific year or decade the music was created in?  It's was the writing concept of those 70's prog or art rock bands that mattered...and not the fact that it was 1972 or 3. It is not an old writing concept or method. It is a method or approach that opens up the music with fine original results. Experimentation is part of it, but rules always applied as well....which meant leaving certain elements OUT! Elements which cause the originality of composition and overall sound to suffer. I don't believe we are doing that today.


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 11:31
Originally posted by Luna Luna wrote:

Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock" Wink
Seeing as rock is a genre of music (an art form), Art Rock is incredibly redundant and condescending.
Agreed. Punk, electronic, jazz... it's all art if it's meant to be appreciated.


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 11:35
Originally posted by irrelevant irrelevant wrote:

^ What is the first prog album? 

It'll be released in a few years, after the band who'll record it meet each other and start a band together.

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 11:42
I don't care. I like what I like.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 11:45
^ not acceptable

-------------
There be dragons


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 12:36
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:



The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.


This made me think a bit about innovation and what that actually is. I came to the conclusion that technology is the single most important part in progression.
Without the electric guitar, would rock music have developed at all? It first served jazz music, that evolved into rock. Then rock evolved into progressive rock, helped along with new electronic devices, such as mellotrones and synthesizers.

For music to be truly progressive today, it needs new technology that makes completely new sounds. Making music from noices you've never heard before.

Or maybe Pink Floyd should finally realize their idea of making music from household objects. I often find myself humming along to my dish washer. LOL


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 13:27
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:



The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.


This made me think a bit about innovation and what that actually is. I came to the conclusion that technology is the single most important part in progression.
...
 
Art has NOT become stagmant ... but our listening habits have!
 
And here we are, and everytime we discuss this subject, all we can do is mention some artist from 40 years ago, and there are no equivalent bands these days, doing things very different than what they did then, but the only thing that we can do is ... look for that sound ... and turn around and say that we need a "proggy bass" ... and that the mix of organ and synth -- by Wakeman and others -- is prog, and no one else's is ... REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT.
 
In general, there probably is a co-relation to new instruments and the development of music, and the synthesizer grew up and learned its use in many of those bands ... unffortunately we have taken all those exercises, and synthesizers these days are just sample stations ... ready to replace the instruments and their players!
 
It was interesting reading an article on Bass Player mag ... about "prog metal" ... and its main ruse? ... the fact that the bass player can more around the neck with amazing speed, doing notes and showing his musical dexterity, like Jon McGlothlin did ... unffortunately, the rest of the music is so empty ... that you are better off not bothering to listen ... but you have to wonder ... ohhh ... so progressive music never had really great bass players that we need to have someone show us ... that this is bass playing and others aren't?
 
We're too stuck on a "sound" ... we don't know what "music" is anymore!
 
That's what you get ... when all you can hear is top ten! Now you know why I would like to see the PA do a top 100 bands ... not albums ... because one band and 7 albums ... takes the music away from other examples, that are far better representative of what we know is right and good ... than anything else. The focus, then, goes on the creators of the music, not just the fan's favorite albums.
 
We're helping kill the genre ... we're not helping it expand!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now try finding your own mirror/art! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 14:50
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

I don't care. I like what I like.


The word 'progressive' has many meanings. Until we can come up with a consistent and universally recognized one, this answer is as good as any. I like the Wetton interview. It allows us to explore the idea without resorting to a merely individual and subjective approach.

-------------
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: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 21:15
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I have never thought of progressive rock as being a category that "pushed boundaries."  Certainly, artists we regard as progressive rock did that, but I don't think that's what it means.
 
How do you define pushed boundaries?

Progressive rock is rock music that progresses.  In other words, it does not maintain the same scheme or pattern throughout its structure.  It is music that visits other passages beyond the common structures  This often involves time signature, tempo, or instrument changes in a given piece.  That is why "Awaken" is a progressive rock song and "Telegraph Road" is not.
 
Okay, this interests me and I feel that visiting these other passages beyond the common structures is locating what could be explained as the beyond. Beyond..as in traveling or progressing beyond what is typically known as the surface of music. Not in any sense are the basics of music limited. "Strawberry Fields Forever" is basic in it's musical form, but artistic in nature/character due to it's coloring. The coloring is what's basically added to the simple structure..like painting and so forth. ..or I often think of it that way. Ideas were added either during the writing/recording process or after the basis of the song had been completed. Either way, it is progressive in nature. It is an act of being progressive just taking those steps alone. This includes how the ideas create an atmosphere musically and even a visual to the listener. "Awaken" at one particular point has a very soothing instrumental section. A ghostly haunting melodic church organ almost fading in and out at times combined with something that sounds like distant chimes. Even though this particular section of "Awaken" doesn't feature a complex time signature with Howe and Squire gymnastics, it is still of a progressive nature because it is colored and presents a personal visual for the listener's choice. Pink Floyd mastered this approach upon using ideas and some of their music is like watching a film.
 


I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.
 
This sounds to me that you are holding preference over everything. Some people's preference is based around what they honestly hear someone doing that remains in a world creation of it's own. It then becomes twice as exciting for them and they are curious about the innovative artist that many other artists are influenced by. It's a humble experience to meet a genius that created it first, came up with the idea first , hava cup a tea and so on. I would love to meet the real inventors instead of the artists who were maybe a bit too much influenced by them. The Enid had some influences which were very obvious, yet they contained a fine originality of their own. You have stated that you don't believe "doing something no one else has done before" could be praiseworthy..but..a lot of people actually would find it praiseworthy because that is what they are precisely looking for. That is their preference and that is what they want to find. Me and my B.S...but , you know what I mean...everyone is different and perhaps you can't relate to the mission some people are on.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 07 2013 at 22:09
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

I don't see the same level of "sonic experimentation" going on with modern prog bands as we did in the 1970's.   John McLaughlin put the double-neck electric guitar to great effect, electric violin appeared in Mahavishnu Orchestra, King Crimson and other bands, Steve Howe brought the pedal-steel guitar, electric sitar and other strange instruments to the stage, and keyboardists like Wakeman and Hawkens gleefully mixed synth with harpsichord, Mellotron with ancient pipe organ etc.  

Prog seems to be very much a formula these days - electric bass, drums, electric & acoustic guitars, and a modicum of electronic keys, usually patched to emulate the acoustic instruments.  

What it needs is a good, dynamic kick in the arse!  Any ideas?   I'd enjoy seeing more women in prog, musical influences besides European classical and American blues/jazz idioms, and some fresh instrumentation. 
These are facts. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me how and why that level of "sonic experimentation" no longer exists. There are always the most common excuses like...technology for example or the theory that by re-entering musical concepts of the past is regression and not by any means progression. I certainly don't agree with that. "Well don't plug in the acoustic guitar, we have patches , technology, and let us take the easy way out". That's moronic and ignorant. And it is also moronic for musicians/composers to copy note for note what Crimson, Mahavishnu, and YES did. That really lacks glory. Think for yourself man! If you have to dress for the office, must you dress exactly like the fellow in the cube next to you? What are we talking about here? This is music not following the past leaders to perfection. They never followed anyone in particular. They were influenced by Classical composers, American Jazz and Folk artists etc....but hardly crossed the line by imitating the source 100 percent for the outcome of original creations. When you are a student, one of your first major steps is to imitate a well know innovative type musician. The next step after mastering that craft is to find your own voice, ideas, and expand on your own without having to hold Steve Howe's hand like a child..(so to speak)...it is laughable to me and also insulting because that is precisely what music training is suppose to do for you if you take it seriously. It progresses from that point. People buy or download your works..."Yes, I sound a little like Steve Howe or Bob Fripp and it is a reflection of my musicial growth"  "But it has little to do with developing my own voice/expression". 
 
 
 
 The main goal for a very involved musical education is to one day think for yourself. That alone takes many years of experience to build upon. Experimentation is definitely part of the experience. If in fact what you say is true about the new bands...then what are we living for? The expansion within the arts or some half wit concept? Hello? You don't copy formulas of the past, you study them a bit and expand yourself , your own originality by adding something new to them. Even a band that is often mawked like ..The Rolling Stones wouldn't copy someone one else if their lives depended on it. "Ruby Tuesday", 2000 Light Years From Home, and Jumping Jack Flash..sound nothing like the Beatles. They were constantly being asked...."Do you think what you do is better than the Beatles?" This was in early 65' and no! the answer to the moronic question was..."The Beatles have their style and we have ours". Why can't these new Prog bands think more along those lines?  Art Zoyd sound nothing like Univers Zero. Not really...when you think about it. Yes, there are refections between the 2 bands, but no...the notation and the atmosphere differs between the 2. They are both sort of influenced by King Crimson, but no! they don't sound anything like K.C.  Both bands have a voice of their own.


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 08 2013 at 00:55
^Sorry, Toddler, it was a nice, long post but I miss you point entirely.  

There are all sorts of examples throughout the history of music where someone invented a new, clever technology that took the art further.   The piano-forte, the celeste, the bass guitar, the electric guitar = all represented substantial advancements over the pre-existing technology. 

OK, what have we had since the digital synth explosion of the 1980s?  Nothing.  No single instrument that cracks the sky like the Mellotron did.  The only thing that seems to be used ad nauseum is auto-tune processing.  I've advocated that in prog but was shouted down on PA.  

Perhaps we should be shifting how we USE the instruments of prog?  Many innovators like Jean-Luc Ponty, Jeff Berlin and others often threw convention to the wind and used their instruments in refreshing new ways. 

I played bass in a 3 piece band once in the 1980s that was very progressive, we were all instrumental, the guitarist generated vast walls of processed sound from multiple racks & I played all lead guitar work on my bass guitar, using wah-wah, fuzz tone & other conventional guitar effects.  I'm anxious to re-create this music but haven't found bandmates creative enough to help.   


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 08 2013 at 01:02
^^^  Yes, that's what it comes down to.  I have seen this conviction and courage in some artists from the 90s and onwards but not one of them would fit into the typical notion of prog.  Maybe the problem is in having a typical notion of prog because I cannot believe the top prog artists of the 70s operated with such a notion.  Why on earth would Gentle Giant have cared about whether or not they sounded like King Crimson.  

The point that Pedro made about music becoming just a sound is also important.  If we go back to blues, maybe the sound ALSO differentiated it from classical music but more importantly it was also a way of making music that was rejected in classical music.   Blues took that and showed it was possible to work outside conventional musical wisdom of that time and still make great music.   It was not ONLY the sound that differentiated rock from blues.   The riffs are played differently, the vocal delivery is also different. Rock was not too obsessed with the waltz either...and introduced instead the unsyncopated but forceful 4/4 that has come to epitomise the quintessential rock beat. These things are not just sound, but also fundamental to the conception and performance of music.  It is not just Hammonds and Gibsons that made rock rock but also the style of writing and rendering music.

On the other hand, I can imagine that people who only focus on the sound of music might write off Jeff Buckley as just a retro/classic apologetic.  And then because he sang in falsetto a lot, he would also be sissy or something like that.  And that is how some 'professional reviews' tried to contextualise his work....as something too polite and mannered.  But that would only miss the point....if the chords of Grace, the unexpected changes and shifts from light to dark don't speak to you at all, then...eh, what is the point of listening to progressive rock.   I am not going to insist people have to listen to music in this way or that because there's no one way.....but if the only thing you listen to music for is the sound, then your listening experience is incomplete.


Posted By: wowie
Date Posted: September 08 2013 at 02:50
this theme is really discussed a lot but i love it, as it really is a progressive and hi-end talk about culture & philosophy in general and music.

as this is quite complex theme, there is every time a new combination of wise things and gives more structure and consciousness to it .... please excuse my formulation, its quite early here in GER ;) and i havent eat sth so far ...

many interesting stuff said here, specially POLYMORPHIA and KAZZA3.

we shouldnt miss the PARTIAL factor here.
a system can have partial skills, so it CAN fall into more then on category of definition.
so many things are progressive, all kinds of musical styles, playing, thinking, sex and so on - its a sort of behavior.

and then there is this PROG genre. that defined in the 70s due to the classic "inventors".
the genre definitely contains the expectation to be progressive in your behavior.
still it does not say how much!
and so, if other genre bands are being progressive, it is absolutely possible, that they are more progressive then a band coming from the PROG genre.

as for the 70s the prog genre summed up with the actual ruling cultural dispositions of the inventors and the rest environment.
mostly rock, jazz, symphonic, folk and electronic.
as there are bands that focus on just a few of those fields, you get divided in your categorization.
such terms as experimental, avant, art, rio and also fusion are pretty much similar to the prog genre. its just another arrangement of preferred elements.
specially fusion, as fusion usually is about fusing everything (such as world music) and not just limited to jazz-rock.

so prog and fusion and also the other stuff is partially fixed as many systems and not all elements behave that proggy (creative, experimental, avant, fresh, new, fusing, crossover,artsy ... )
 
still there is progression in the prog genre, and at some points even hi-end.
but that is mostly at those points, where artist want to REFORM, develop the PROG genre in itself. outside the mainstream. so mostly they dont call themselves just prog artists.
they call it rock/electro/folk, they call it prog-fusion, prog-jazz, progressive blues,
call it chamber folk/rock/rio, they call it indie, they call it ambient/folk/avant/symphonic ....
there is so many progressive stuff out there.

so i have no problem to expand the borders of the prog genre and behave much more progressive here. in the end it is not really much saying to be a prog artists, just that you should be very creative in what you do and maybe have an eclectic/universal view of the things so to fulfill the expectation of being progressive/creative with all possibilitys you have.

so when it comes to the question which bands we add to the progarchives db, which categorys must be fullfilled?
the genre gets more and more in the background, as the mix of the genres is more important and also the mix of skills you use on your album.
but yes i guess there is a little focus and prioritization to rock, symphonic and audipophile/experimental stuff. Where the last one is the most important for me.
the audiophile element is important as it allows you, it motivates you to use all stuff there is, You are even hot on exploring the new sounds. as this is necessary to be free in what you do and being progressive.

experimental, avant, art and fusion are more open or should i say, focused on the skill to expand your possibilitys. maybe not that rock oriented like prog. but thats just a historical and no present point.
but due to history, the category symphonic rock is kind of the mainstream of prog genre, as other stufff is the mainstream of other genres. Why, well most people can only play rock instruments .... and, yes, keyboards
... anything more to say :D
for mans sake there are many artists who are not mainstream and so we have much more things in the prog genre then what many think is the prog genre. just look at the categorys of the PRdb. Look at the bands getting recommended.
A lot of jazz, chamber, electronic, worldmusic, triphop, DnB, indie and more and more pop music.
They are so proggy, that the mix of genres is quite balanced and even a majority of rock, jazz and symphonic and electronic - i just say INDIE!

of course its sad as some see that all this proggy stuff, the freedom of doing music, isnt integrated THAT MUCH, so only partial in the mainstream category of symphonic rock.
but thats just the rules of mainstream and thats also why Jethro Tull will not sound like King Crimson.

back then and today we can be happy that progression is part of the zeitgeist. Its hip and so its kind of popular. And it is today, its even extreme and everywhere, all genres and artists getting more and more progressive and eclectic in there behavior.
its ridiculous not to use all the stuff that is out there.
But of course you have to learn it and you must getting part of the more proggy culture.

So the alternative culture, the proggy culture is getting bigger and bigger, but still the mainstream is playing save. So in the next 40 years, there still will be pretty unproggy bands in the prog genre, as in all other life fields too, i guess not that much like you are in a bible group or something like that. ;)

i just love prog as i love mankind and revolution
its all one isnt it ;)


Posted By: The Mystical
Date Posted: September 08 2013 at 07:32
I personally believe that all music is progressive. The idea that defying convention is progressive is both paradoxical and redundant in today's music scene, simply because defying convention is one of the greatest musical conventions.

I love prog simply because I enjoy the music that falls 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: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 08 2013 at 09:28
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

^Sorry, Toddler, it was a nice, long post but I miss you point entirely.  

There are all sorts of examples throughout the history of music where someone invented a new, clever technology that took the art further.   The piano-forte, the celeste, the bass guitar, the electric guitar = all represented substantial advancements over the pre-existing technology. 

OK, what have we had since the digital synth explosion of the 1980s?  Nothing.  No single instrument that cracks the sky like the Mellotron did.  The only thing that seems to be used ad nauseum is auto-tune processing.  I've advocated that in prog but was shouted down on PA.  

Perhaps we should be shifting how we USE the instruments of prog?  Many innovators like Jean-Luc Ponty, Jeff Berlin and others often threw convention to the wind and used their instruments in refreshing new ways. 

I played bass in a 3 piece band once in the 1980s that was very progressive, we were all instrumental, the guitarist generated vast walls of processed sound from multiple racks & I played all lead guitar work on my bass guitar, using wah-wah, fuzz tone & other conventional guitar effects.  I'm anxious to re-create this music but haven't found bandmates creative enough to help.   
My point is that today, too many people depend on technology as a quick multi-task method of producing a sound. It's understandable if you can't afford to hire a Japanese girls choir and you have no choice but to emulate that sound through patching....but if you depend on patches and sequencing for everything single solitary thing...then the music suffers. I totally agree with you about Jean-Luc Ponty and Jeff Berlin....and practically every point you've made. I just think that too much dependency on technology because you can't afford to pay real musicians creates a wall and sometimes blocks off amazing aspects of creativity instead of opening them up. Even on a level of a cover band...where upon many seasoned musicians have called me onthe phone to inform me that cover bands who lack talent/diversity are using sequencing/drum machines , not needing to have more than 2 to 3 musicians on stage for a gig, only charging club owners 300 dollars as opposed to a 6 piece band like mine which is paid anywhere between 6 hundred to 15 hundred. These cover bands who depend on sequencing are stealing all the gigs from the more naturally talented bands and that's what the musicians are complaining about when they call me monthy to inform me of the on going situation. Many club owners would rather pay 3 hundred than 6 hunderd or a thousand anyday.
 
Apparently..many bands in the Jersey areas are not experienced enough to play the parts correctly and sequencing or tapes etc...will substitute their inability or lack of experience. However...since we have been performing regularly, an abundance of people have expressed an overwhelming response...stating .."Wow, you guys are a real band" or "All the bands are using sequencing/drum machines and it stinks to not be able to see a real drummer". or..."You guys are more like a concert band".....The crowds seem to despise the bands with sequencing and as a result, we have been surprisingly packing these venues , being booked for 6 or 7 hundred...and being asked several times by the owners to play an extra hour and...the owner paying us an extra 2 hundred dollars for it. Obviously..people want to see real musicians and not deal with sequencing along with 2 or 3 players. People want to see the drummer possibly dropping a stick once in a while, or a guitarist almost tripping over his guitar chord. People want to see things going wrong on stage so they can feel as if they are part of something. People appreciate when we play a song that has a progressive rock style. I have discovered all of this starting in April of this year and I'm very surprised.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 08 2013 at 22:32
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  Yes, that's what it comes down to.  I have seen this conviction and courage in some artists from the 90s and onwards but not one of them would fit into the typical notion of prog.  Maybe the problem is in having a typical notion of prog because I cannot believe the top prog artists of the 70s operated with such a notion.  Why on earth would Gentle Giant have cared about whether or not they sounded like King Crimson.  

The point that Pedro made about music becoming just a sound is also important.  If we go back to blues, maybe the sound ALSO differentiated it from classical music but more importantly it was also a way of making music that was rejected in classical music.   Blues took that and showed it was possible to work outside conventional musical wisdom of that time and still make great music.   It was not ONLY the sound that differentiated rock from blues.   The riffs are played differently, the vocal delivery is also different. Rock was not too obsessed with the waltz either...and introduced instead the unsyncopated but forceful 4/4 that has come to epitomise the quintessential rock beat. These things are not just sound, but also fundamental to the conception and performance of music.  It is not just Hammonds and Gibsons that made rock rock but also the style of writing and rendering music.

On the other hand, I can imagine that people who only focus on the sound of music might write off Jeff Buckley as just a retro/classic apologetic.  And then because he sang in falsetto a lot, he would also be sissy or something like that.  And that is how some 'professional reviews' tried to contextualise his work....as something too polite and mannered.  But that would only miss the point....if the chords of Grace, the unexpected changes and shifts from light to dark don't speak to you at all, then...eh, what is the point of listening to progressive rock.   I am not going to insist people have to listen to music in this way or that because there's no one way.....but if the only thing you listen to music for is the sound, then your listening experience is incomplete.
I love this post. Great viewpoints on the subject. Points for all of us to think about.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 10 2013 at 14:12
Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so?
  2. If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so?
  3. If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock?
  4. Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved?
  5. What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative?
  6. Have we reached the limit of creativity in music?
  7. Does technology restrict the creativity?
  8. Is everything that happens in mainstream commercial music relevant at all to what non-mainstream artists are doing?
  9. Are non-mainstream non-Prog artists (Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes etc.) innovative, challenging or relevant?
  10. Are mainstream "grown-up" artists relevant?
  11. Has the proliferation of self-release music changed anything?
  12. Has the apparent demise of the Label system changed anything?
  13. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?
  14. Do modern musicians practice less than their counterparts from decades past?
  15. Why aren't old musicians producing innovative music now?
  16. Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it?


-------------
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: September 10 2013 at 23:16
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"


-------------
https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 11 2013 at 10:28
Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 11 2013 at 23:00
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.

Good post!  If anything, today's musicians are MUCH more highly trained & educated in music than their fore-bears!  Steve Howe admits to being self-taught, Bob Fripp had dance jazz lessons etc.  These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  

The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.  


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 00:12
How much change can possibly happen/change/progress in 40 years? When using the same instruments and same ideas, similar output will occur. (And of course the originals are going to be the best because they came first). We're really just so caught up in how great the pioneers of this movement were (something I'm very guilty of) that we don't have near as much passion to create something original. But of course, mimicking is much easier than innovating.


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 00:44
It's a style of classicalized rock music that probably gained its name from the fact that it literally "progresses" to distant musical places within the song (often, anyway). It was also highly innovative, and in my estimation contains the most musical possibilities of any non-classical genre (I would argue it has more than jazz, seeing as it can handily integrate jazz influence, and jazz often lacks in structure). Thus, even now, I find the most original music to be within the progressive style. The term fits either way.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 01:29
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:


The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.  
Oooooo.. the wheels on the tour bus go round and round, round and round, round and round
the wheels on the tour bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, all day long.
 
 


-------------
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 08:04
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.

Good post!  If anything, today's musicians are MUCH more highly trained & educated in music than their fore-bears!  Steve Howe admits to being self-taught, Bob Fripp had dance jazz lessons etc.  These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  

The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.  
I appreciate the rarity of your conversation/responses. It's rare as rocking horse sh-t to hold a conversation like this. It's most likely the area I reside in. It's painful. The devil said..."We don't deal the deck down here, we just play the percentages". Wink  I appreciate your information!


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 08:44
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  
Are you talking about the Al Di Meola, who had his record debut in 1974

-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 09:03
  1. If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so? But it is (just avoid the Symp & Neo genre)
  2. If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so? Its not
  3. If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock? Progressive rock is what it is
  4. Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved? NO - let evolution point the way
  5. What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative? The urge to become a star 
  6. Have we reached the limit of creativity in music? That will never happen
  7. Does technology restrict the creativity? No on the contrary, its just tools, the more the better.
  8. Is everything that happens in mainstream commercial music relevant at all to what non-mainstream artists are doing?  Not everything, but some mainst. reflect in sub, and visa versa.
  9. Are non-mainstream non-Prog artists (Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes etc.) innovative, challenging or relevant? To those who like them, i bet they are
  10. Are mainstream "grown-up" artists relevant? Have no clue what that is.
  11. Has the proliferation of self-release music changed anything? Yes, that is a long story
  12. Has the apparent demise of the Label system changed anything? look above.
  13. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past? LOL
  14. Do modern musicians practice less than their counterparts from decades past? Headbanger
  15. Why aren't old musicians producing innovative music now? They are old
  16. Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it? I am.


-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 12:14
Will try to answer Dean's questions

1.- If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so? 

Of course it is, Progressive Rock has no relation with the adjective that implies evolution of the musical form, it'sn just a name of a genre....It may and can evolve, but if it doesn't it's still Progressive understood as the name of a genre, the best definition was given by Keith Emerson years ago:

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson file:///D:/Computadora%20Antigua/mis%20documentos%20c/Libro%20Ivan/A%29%20Introducci%C3%B3n%20e%20%C3%AFndice.doc#_ftn1" rel="nofollow - - - 2.- If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so?


Modern Prog is not regressive, If some artists sound remotely similar to the ones of the 70's,, it's because they play the same genre.

Modern Jazz artist have a lot in common with Satchmo or Dule Ellington BECAUSE THEY PLAY THE SAME GENRE.

If an artist plays Symphonic Prog, surely will have something in common with Symphonic artists of the 70's

3.- If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock?

Not necessarily.

4.- Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved?

Of course, everything that is good, deserves to be preserved

5.- What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative? 

Their will to play in a different style or genre.

6.- Have we reached the limit of creativity in music?

That will never happen 

7.- Does technology restrict the creativity?

No, neither it helps, the music is made by the artist, not by technology

8.- Is everything that happens in mainstream commercial music relevant at all to what non-mainstream artists are doing? 

No, some is, some isn't

9.- Are non-mainstream non-Prog artists (Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes etc.) innovative, challenging or relevant?

Yes they are, but doesn't mean they are Prog bands

10.- Are mainstream "grown-up" artists relevant?

Some are, some aren't

11.- Has the proliferation of self-release music changed anything? 

Yes, but it's not always positive.

12.- Has the apparent demise of the Label system changed anything? 

Of course, some artists really need labels.

13.- Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

No way, yesterday I reviewed a modern masterpiece by Fright Pig

14.- Do modern musicians practice less than their counterparts from decades past?

In general terms yes, because the vast majority  need to find a day job to survive and can't dedicate exclusively to music

15.- Why aren't old musicians producing innovative music now?

Some have aged, lost interest and some keep making great music

16.- Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it? 

Why should they? People has lamented since music was created and will  lament until the end of times

Iván











-------------
            


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 12:27
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

10. Are mainstream "grown-up" artists relevant? Have no clue what that is.

I term "grown up" artists as those artists that grown-ups listen to or artists that have a grown-up attitude, approach or image. So this automatically excludes all teen bands, Justine Blibblier (or whatever her name is), Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Hippity Hop, any singer who's known just by their first name, whatever's fad of the month this week, any artists that release tracks "featuring" another artist (neither of which I've ever heard of), everything on <<insert the name of your country here>>'s Got Talent

-------------
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 13:07
Is progressive rock progressive? Ummm...why yes...yes it is!

Now I assume as I have read most of what has been said on this forum, that we are discussing if that the 'difference Engine' is still is running strong in Prog rock in general with such regarding factors as the use of technology in music and the role of virtuosity to keep the 'difference alive and fresh.' I've gotta say yes, where by I still feel that Prog rock in general is still very interesting, fresh and relevant. Certain artist/bands like the more modern creatures of the 21st century like Ulver, Devin Townsend, Animals As Leaders and even now NIN are still creatively pushing towards new boundaries of musical exploration. I am quite happy with what I've heard lately and I do not think that Prog music has gone stale in any way. I know some here are more traditional Prog rock listeners where the bulk of their love for music resides in the late 60's and 70's era. That's all well and good and I love a ton of music from that time period, but to say that technology has hindered the creative process of music composition or virtuosity not being as largely exsistant as it was in the 60's and 70's would merely be a matter of opinion and couldn't be something that is fact related, so I will have to skip over that issue that a few of you have brought up here, although you guys make a good argument for what you believe in. :)

Anyway. I'll stick to the question 'Is Prog Rock still Progressive by the true sense of the word's meaning, and I'm gonna have to say yes. From what I've heard or have explored thus far I gotta say yes. Is it fresh, innovative and relevant as it was 30 to 40 years ago...again I gotta say yes it is. It's just different now and I really wouldn't say it's better or worse because to be honest I really do love it all...sorry for sounding like a fanboy here but that is the truth.

To be honest though, I'm not sure how much further Prog music in general can go from here?
I think the rocket sauce may give out in 10 to 15 years. My point being I think the future looks bleak, but right now things are pretty good from my angle. ;)

-------------
Raving and drooling I leaned on his neck with a screeeeeeeamm! ;)


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 13:09
Hippity Hop, great band name


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 21:07
I can't vouch for its progressiveness, but it really hasn't regressed any.


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 22:09
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Will try to answer Dean's questions

16.- Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it? 

Why should they? People has lamented since music was created and will  lament until the end of times

Iván 
I agreed with some stuff you said and disagreed with other parts, but this really stood out to me. What you have here is an excuse. A justification for doing something that you know is not the right thing. "Everyone else is doing it" is the kind of logic that forms the pop stars this forum despises so much. Why whine about something when you have the ability to create a whole new genre that people can whine about? "Everyone else is doing it" is a cop out at best.


-------------
https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:12
Originally posted by Luna Luna wrote:

Quote Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M

Will try to answer Dean's questions

16.- Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it? 

Why should they? People has lamented since music was created and will  lament until the end of times

Iván 

I agreed with some stuff you said and disagreed with other parts, but this really stood out to me. What you have here is an excuse. A justification for doing something that you know is not the right thing. "Everyone else is doing it" is the kind of logic that forms the pop stars this forum despises so much. Why whine about something when you have the ability to create a whole new genre that people can whine about? "Everyone else is doing it" is a cop out at best.

No, that's not my point

I believe modern Prog musicians are doing a great work, and there's no reason to lament, Prog music is in it's best moment since the 70's.

In the last twelve years, we have added many outstanding Symphonic bands and I'm sure that every team has done the same, but people will always live in the past or complain about the past, protest for complexity or ask for more complexity, there's even people who protested because Prog artists committed the crime of wanting  to make money with their music..

Believe me, people will always find a reason to lament.

- In the 70's they said that Prog was overblown, self indulgent and arrogant.
- In the 80s' people said that Neo Prog was lame and cried for the return of the 70's
- In the 90's Swedish bands returned to the style everybody missed, and another group invented the term Retro Prog and lamented that they hadn't evolved enough.
- In the 00's people complained about Prog Metal and  the influence of Indie and Alternativeg
- In the 10's, people will find another excuse to lament

Prog is healthy and alive after almost 5 decades, has survived the crisis of Symphonic, the animosity of Punk, the Disco era, Prog haters, etc,  has grown more than ever with a wider range of sounds atmospheres or styles and buried a lot of more popular genres.

I said it before, there's no worst enemy of Prog than a prog fan.

Iván

 


-------------
            


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:18
Originally posted by kingcrimsonfan kingcrimsonfan wrote:

Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?


Regardless, it still tends to sound like good music.


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:18
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Will try to answer Dean's questions

1.- If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so? 

Of course it is, Progressive Rock has no relation with the adjective that implies evolution of the musical form, it'sn just a name of a genre....It may and can evolve, but if it doesn't it's still Progressive understood as the name of a genre, the best definition was given by Keith Emerson years ago:

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


I love Emo's definition, but it should ring familiar for anyone who's studied the music of JS Bach.  Bach would create a melody, then reverse it, invert it, break it up into pieces, then reunite it in a different order altogether with variations.  And that doesn't even reference what he'd do with the harmony and chordal accompanyment underneath the melody.  Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier" is the classic study of 24 fugues and preludes written in each major and minor key.  The goal of the structure of a fugue is to do exactly what Keith is mentioning, and Bach is it's undisputed master.

Another composer that took Emo's idea to a different conclusion is Arnold Schoenberg.  His creation of serial (or 12 tone) composition is built on the premise of creating a "tone row" which is an ordering of the 12 notes of the Western scale.  This "tone row" defines a strict order of notes that appear - and are repeated - in your composition.  Then there are variations as the tone row is played in reverse, inverted, and reverse-inverted.  A couple great pieces to seek out for those curious as to what this actually sounds like is Schoenberg's "Variations for Orchestra Op. 31", "Piano Concerto Op. 32", or the only 12 tone opera I know of "Moses and Arun".

By Keith's definition, Bach was playing prog in the 1700's and Schoenberg in the mid 1900's.  As Patrick Moraz said, "there is nothing new except what has been forgotten".


-------------
https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:23
Originally posted by The.Crimson.King The.Crimson.King wrote:

 

I love Emo's definition, but it should ring familiar for anyone who's studied the music of JS Bach.  Bach would create a melody, then reverse it, invert it, break it up into pieces, then reunite it in a different order altogether with variations.  And that doesn't even reference what he'd do with the harmony and chordal accompanyment underneath the melody.  Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier" is the classic study of 24 fugues and preludes written in each major and minor key.  The goal of the structure of a fugue is to do exactly what Keith is mentioning, and Bach is it's undisputed master.

Another composer that took Emo's idea to different conclusion is Arnold Schoenberg.  His creation of serial (or 12 tone) composition is built on the premise of creating a "tone row" which is an ordering of the 12 notes of the Western scale.  This "tone row" defines a strict order of notes that appear in your composition.  Then there are variations as the tone row is played in reverse, inverted, and reverse-inverted.  A couple great pieces to seek out for those curious as to what this actually sounds like is Schoenberg's "Pierrot Lunaire" or the only 12 tone opera I know of "Moses and Arun".

By Keith's definition, Bach was playing prog in the 1700's and Schoenberg in the mid 1900's.  As Patrick Moraz said, "there is nothing new except what has been forgotten".

Of course, Emerson's music was the bridge between musicians as Bach and Rock

But instead of copying the music, they adapted that spirit to Rock.

Bach wasn't doing Prog, because Prog has a Rock component...But the idea is the same

Iván


PS: I always said (Half joke, half seriously) that the first prog Musicians were the Russian Nationalists,.they rejected Western Europe canons, refused to play mainstream music, and even without lyrics they told Russian tales with their music

There's an anecdote that I told some time ago, but i believe illustrates this

Quote The Mighty Handful was invited to Vienna and paid a lot of money, but when they reached that city, the palace Chamberlain said that they had to play some Strauss waltzes, Mussorgsky replied "We are Russian Nationalists, we don't play Waltzes", so they couldn't reach an agreement, Borodin offered to play Polkas, but the Vienna Court wanted Waltzes.

The money wasn't going to be given back, because the Russian musicians had reached Vienna and were willing to play, but in punishment and revenge they were forced to spend all winter playing in public parks at a freezing temperature,, but they never sold to the court.

I imagine some Prog band telling the producer "We don't play rap, we are Prog Musicians" amnd being forced to play in a small pub because there's no audience.



-------------
            


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:30
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  
Are you talking about the Al Di Meola, who had his record debut in 1974

The same.  I saw his "Land of the Midnight Sun" tour, when Al D. opened the show for Weather Report.  Jaco Pastorius, Wayne Shorter, Joe Zawinul etc.  He was sublime.  

Al was a young pup when he started with RTF, compared to Fripp, Howe etc. in 1974.  He was the vanguard of the "degreed musician," exemplified by modern players such as Fareed Haque (PhD in guitar & chair of guitar at Northern Illinois University), Joe Satriani and many others.  

However, much of the stuff touted as "prog" these days seems hardly that.  One of my favorites is Scale the Summit, young guys who burn the fretwire.  


Check this stuff out:






Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 13:20
Thank you cstack, I really appreciated those guys. They're on Spotify so I'll listen to their other stuff. Thumbs Up


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 18:14
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Thank you cstack, I really appreciated those guys. They're on Spotify so I'll listen to their other stuff. Thumbs Up

You are most welcome!  I saw them with the monster prog-fest that Dream Theater organized (Big Elf, STS, Zappa Plays Zappa & DT).   STS blew me away!  Clap

They are rising talents, keep your eyes open for them on tour.  Cheers!


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 18:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so? It really depends on what you'd be referring to. Progressive rock as a tradition is not very progressive anymore. Why? Because prog musicians often just place the same boundaries on themselves as the early prog artists, and so all the boundaries that they "push," or think they are pushing, are the same as in the 70s. But, there are certainly artists these days that are considered in the prog genre that place different limits on themselves. It's only that they don't always consider themselves as prog.
  2. If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so? The prog I was referring to in my answer to the first question is not regressive, but stagnant, for the reasons I stated. But these are generalizations.
  3. If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock? In terms of genre? I don't define prog clearly enough to give an answer. In terms of tradition? I still can't answer. I might say no, but that would exclude early prog artists. What is called prog yesterday and today may be very similar in terms of the music, but often, in terms of its origins, it isn't.
  4. Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved? I don't really see a need for it, but, if I did, I would start a Yes cover band, not the Flower Kings.
  5. What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative? The placing of the boundaries that have already been placed, or, conversely, the removal of all conscious boundaries, and reliance on only the subconscious boundaries which are limited to that with which one is familiar.
  6. Have we reached the limit of creativity in music? Nope.
  7. Does technology restrict the creativity? Nope. Will answer the rest soon.


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 23:38
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Thank you cstack, I really appreciated those guys. They're on Spotify so I'll listen to their other stuff. Thumbs Up

This one is even better!  I've been playing electric guitar for forty years & can't touch these kids!  They blend a bit of Fripp, Zappa, Trey Gunn, Steve Vai, Rush etc. into one very unique and smooth sound!!  

A few guys with electric guitars & picks, no Mellotrons, no warbling contra-tenor vocals etc.  Check 'em out!  There is hope for prog, we just need some more brave young folks to jump into the deep end of the pool!  

Rock on!  Headbanger




Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 09:44
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Thank you cstack, I really appreciated those guys. They're on Spotify so I'll listen to their other stuff. Thumbs Up

This one is even better!  I've been playing electric guitar for forty years & can't touch these kids!  They blend a bit of Fripp, Zappa, Trey Gunn, Steve Vai, Rush etc. into one very unique and smooth sound!!  

A few guys with electric guitars & picks, no Mellotrons, no warbling contra-tenor vocals etc.  Check 'em out!  There is hope for prog, we just need some more brave young folks to jump into the deep end of the pool!  

Rock on!  Headbanger




Absolutely talented. They make it look so easy.
I appreciate the bass playing too.


Posted By: thestillowl
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 10:35
99% of Neo Prog is regressive and badly executed..I've yet to hear  one band formed after 1990 that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the 70's giants of Yes,Crimson,Tull,ELP,Focus and Gentle Giant.There was something about what i call the '1947 generation' in the UK that was special and magical.


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 13:43
Originally posted by thestillowl thestillowl wrote:

99% of Neo Prog is regressive and badly executed..I've yet to hear  one band formed after 1990 that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the 70's giants of Yes,Crimson,Tull,ELP,Focus and Gentle Giant.There was something about what i call the '1947 generation' in the UK that was special and magical.

żHave you even heard?








(This is one song from a double album divided in 7 songs (4 epics))












All post 1990, and I have 500 like this ones (BTW: Except Magenta, none is considered Neo Prog)




-------------
            


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 14:49
IMO there is nothing 'regressive' about the progressive rock being made these days and if one investigates the various types there are more adventurous styles along with more classic prog sounds. There has always been a core sound to what we all call prog rock and the newer bands from the 80's onward have merely written in that style.
Others have gone a bit beyond that to more avant garde styles like RIO, post rock/math rock, experimental/post metal, and tech/extreme post metal.
There are also limitations inherent in music itself. If one is writing in any of the various  prog rock styles then it has to contain elements of that previous srtyle or it becomes something other...whatever that might be. If it's too progressive and  avant garde , then it may become unlistenable to many and then would be castigated for being 'too out there'.
So how does one make prog rock that is more progressive than the originators of prog and yet contain enough elements to make it both likable and listenable? IMO it will still end up sounding at times like the original classic artists but with a twist and that 's ok with me.


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: jayem
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 19:41
Nice to hear 5Bridges back again...One spare Peter Gabriel-like voice !!




Posted By: Second Life Syndrome
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:03
Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.

When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.

Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.

Exactly.


-------------
theprogmind.com


Posted By: Second Life Syndrome
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:09
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.

The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.

Not to be disrespectful, but get off your high horse, dude.  Who made you the measure of originality?  If you don't like something, that doesn't make it bad.  It doesn't make it unoriginal.   It doesn't mean art is in a sad state.  It means you don't like it, or that you have an inflated ego or a ridiculously high standard for others---though you make no art yourself.  Sheesh.


-------------
theprogmind.com


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:37
*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category.  I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so. 

My argument is that ALL rock is progressive!  The very first rock fused American black musical forms (blues, jazz) with white American technical & commercial savvy, and then took off.  

Many of the earliest rock music had some KILLER musicianship because the jazz studio players of the era would do rock dates for money!  

Check out the guitar solo in this lovely old chestnut - it starts exactly at 0.43.  Who played that, Steve Howe??






Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 22:15
Originally posted by Second Life Syndrome Second Life Syndrome wrote:

Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.

The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.

Not to be disrespectful, but get off your high horse, dude.  Who made you the measure of originality?  If you don't like something, that doesn't make it bad.  It doesn't make it unoriginal.   It doesn't mean art is in a sad state.  It means you don't like it, or that you have an inflated ego or a ridiculously high standard for others---though you make no art yourself.  Sheesh.


Zravkapt...


you must have never heard...
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...

I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.




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



wtf


Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: September 14 2013 at 22:36
Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol

-------------
All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock.


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 00:00
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category.  I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so. 

^ I always think of it as Art Rock as well Handshake


-------------
https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987


Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 06:35
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:




Zravkapt...


you must have never heard...
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...

I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.




How is what any of those groups do different from what other groups were doing 20-30 years ago? Koenjihyakkei is the Japanese Magma for crying out loud...how original can you be when you are compared to another group? The question could be pointed back: how familiar are you with music that came out between 1969-1999? I listen to lots of modern music and because I do I am aware of how little innovation has taken place. 'Original' does not equal good and just because a band is current does not mean they are doing anything that someone else hasn't already done before.


-------------
Magma America Great Make Again


Posted By: rainsnowwinter
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 06:55
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson file:///D:/Computadora%20Antigua/mis%20documentos%20c/Libro%20Ivan/A%29%20Introducci%C3%B3n%20e%20%C3%AFndice.doc#_ftn1" rel="nofollow -



Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 07:04
Originally posted by dr prog dr prog wrote:

Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol
And all of them that formed before 1980. rfolofofollofloffaho.

-------------
"You know what uranium is, right?
It’s this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."


Posted By: jayem
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 07:53
What's new nowadays: everything has become easier, from creating complex polyrythmics (advanced DJ-ing /quantize tools), to working on pitches, to sound engineering (powerful virtual tools), since computers can manage complex audio processing...So it is from 15-20 years on...

...If the only possible 
new music is the one that would nearly exhaust powerful computers of nowadays; and if the taste of unknown only depends on what we did explore before, so the point isn't really about a new conceptual revolution for itself, is it?



-------------
http://www.digger.ch/?lang=en" rel="nofollow - Support mine-clearing !
https://bandcamp.com/machinechance/?lang=en" rel="nofollow - bandcamp collection


Posted By: wowie
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 08:00
maybe its just progressive (means stylistically unfixed) music with a heavy disposition to the rock genre.
if you then say its regressive, you can only mean that the progressive element, to build in new styles (which includes playing methods, instruments, genres) is less processed then in relation to another time (like the 70s).

As you have some subgenres of prog these days, the progressive element is of course not everywhere at maximum.
In some subgenres the progressive elements are pretty fixed to special methods.
And in every subgenre you have different types of progression.
The one progresses not much, hes only part of the genre that once was progressive but is pretty fixed now 8because its no new fusion or progress of styles), another progresses with the playing (so he plays symphonic rock but hes still progressive as he is doing a lots of creativity/progress/recombining in playing methods and instruments) and another one is progressive in more then one way (using a lots of different instruments and genres and so on).

math rock is a good example.
it is extremely progressive in terms of playing, but pretty unprogressive in terms of genre adaption.

but mostly in every genre and subgenre, you have somebody that breaks the principle, the grade of fixation, the actual balance of the system and reforming parts of it.

As long as the people are unclear of what prog rock/prog music is, it will be a hard argumentation as mostly everybody is talking about a different source. so it would be good if there would be a summation of the possible perspectives.


but one thing is clear, prog music lovers will not come to the perpective that prog music is regressing, this is just not possible because you have to be progressive to be a prog musician.

For fans of the prog rock, its not as easy to say this, because first of all it is historical dependent on definition and second because rock is kind of dated more and more.
There is a heavy problem to define many bands these days and so we call em all post-rock bands. just because they use e-guitar, drums and bass and are not playing in terms of Elvis, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.

back then, some things were progressive, but today, they are just old and 70s, today its just pure symphonic-rock and it was there many times and it isnt progressive any more due to an universal art/prog definition.
so there is a partial regression, specially in using different genres and in using instruments in some subgenres that came out of the new experimental/fusion/art/prog genre in the 70s.

Back then you were open in definition and you had to be extremely experimental and fusing in your approach.
Today, many just reproduce the FUSED structure from back then.
Thats why it is called retro-prog.

And why is retro-prog still prog?
because they are partially oepn in some elements.
Even if it is just the playing of their instruments.

And so, for some or even for many, this is not really prog, because it is extremely reproductive in many ways.
But it stil lcan be prog msuic if you classify it as a simple term of symphonic-folk-electric-experimental-rock.
but you have to be very exact here when it come to the percentual definition ;)


Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 08:18
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:




Zravkapt...


you must have never heard...
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...

I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.




How is what any of those groups do different from what other groups were doing 20-30 years ago? Koenjihyakkei is the Japanese Magma for crying out loud...how original can you be when you are compared to another group? The question could be pointed back: how familiar are you with music that came out between 1969-1999? I listen to lots of modern music and because I do I am aware of how little innovation has taken place. 'Original' does not equal good and just because a band is current does not mean they are doing anything that someone else hasn't already done before.

Personally I think they sound very different than Magma. Sure, they owe a lot to them, but it does't mean it isn't original. And I think it's catchy and funny and weird and I enjoy it. Just like Sleepytime Gorilla Museum owes plenty to Mr. Bungle but Mr Bungle owes plenty to Idiot Flesh and so on and so on.

And I'm pretty familiar with older bands as well. You could say The Mars Volta is a ripoff of Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso

But let's look at it this way...

There are only so many modes and keys. And they had all been explored by the time the 20th century rolled around. All we did as humans was add different percussion and textures.

WITH YOUR ATTITUDE... music after the 1950s is all unoriginal because they didn't do anything NEW

Pink Floyd took chord structures that had been used before and added effects. UNORIGINAL
Gentle Giant is just a ripoff of Baroque Music UNORIGINAL
King Crimson just stole from jazz and classical music UNORIGINAL

(I"m being facetious) 


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



wtf


Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:00
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:


There are only so many modes and keys. And they had all been explored by the time the 20th century rolled around. All we did as humans was add different percussion and textures. 
 
My whole point is few are 'adding' anything. Just because a band is not doing anything new doesn't mean they cannot make good music. In my personal opinion, most art (music, books, movies, etc) has become too predictable and bland. I also feel that the progress of technology seems more important to many people today. As an example, take the recent hit movie Avatar. It was popular because no one had ever seen a movie like that before. The technology made the movie; the actual storyline and acting was not any better than in the original Star Wars films, for example.
 
Here's some examples of recent stuff I would consider modern prog that was still trying to be unique and experimental. The first is a recently released album which I don't think anyone has suggested for PA yet; the other two are artists already on PA.
 
This is something I'm surprised hasn't been done yet, featuring artists who appear on PA either as bandmembers or solo artists:
 
 
Claudio Milano has a few different projects out there (some prog, some not). He's willing to push boundaries even if no one is listening:
 
 
Cabezas de Cera use not only unconventional instruments but also ones they themselves invented. They add some ethnic influences into the mix and create something that is not only 100% 'prog' but doesn't sound like other prog bands either:
 
 
  


-------------
Magma America Great Make Again


Posted By: BrufordFreak
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:21
Reading this thread makes me think it would be fun and perhaps worth our while to put out a thread to actually come up with a new name for "progressive rock." Then, if we, the thousands who live on and for this type of music were to latch onto this new title, we could actually make a change--make it stick. How 'bout: 
"Graz Rock" or 
"Mobile Music" or
"Random Rock" or 
"Choice Rock" or
 "Experimental Rock" or 
"LP Rock" or 
"Self-absorbed Rock Music" or 
MoRe-than-Rock" or 
"Re-Form Rock" or 
"Less Common Rock" or 
"Non-Formulaic Formula Rock" or 
"Complicated Rock" or 
"Charterhouse Rock" or
"Devon Rock" or
"Empire Rock" or
"Affluent Rock" or
"Unusual Small Combo Music" or
"Electrically-Enhanced Music for Jazz and Classical Musicians" ("EEM") or
"Free Form Compostion", 
etc., 
etc.




-------------
Drew Fisher,
retired radio DJ and dormant music blogger
Sheboygan, Wisconsin


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:42
Oh yeah DarrylClap Love me some Cabezas de Cera. I've heard snippets off of their newest Hermandad and it sounds amazing to these ears, but right now I'm too broke to go buy new records. Verdammt!

As I've pointed out previously in this thread, I don't think prog has progressed much in recent years. That doesn't mean that there isn't good stuff out there though, because there is. A lot of what's featured here on PA isn't necessarily what I'd call prog either(I don't consider Krautrock, Zeuhl, Psych/space rock, RIO/Avant, as well as most of what's included in the more experimental metal genres, to be prog.) - even if it does belong here in one way or another, which again leads me to the tricky part of this conundrum, and where we always seem to land in these kinda pseudo discussions: How each of us defines prog, or indeed what constitutes progressive music, is at the heart of the quarrel. I've seen a lot of acts mentioned here, whom people obviously think of as being progressive, where I think they perhaps mean prog, as in the style of music. In my head, and bear with me here because my head is a wild and sometimes incoherent place, but in the old cabeza of mine, prog and progressive aren't the same things, which a lot of people get wrong. Prog has become a style that relies on what folks were doing in the 70s - and just because bands of today are "pushing boundaries" with secular pieces within their tunes, add weird instruments and all that jazz, doesn't mean that it hasn't been done before. Nor does it mean that it's bad in any way, shape or form. 
Again, my sentiments on this is that the real progressive rock lies somewhere outside of the prog-sphere, and has done so ever since the late 70s (with some exceptions though, which Darryl(Zravkapt) illustrated perfectly with his clips. Cabezas are certainly bringing something new to the table imho)
Lastly, I'd like to think that a band can be fully original without having to be progressive. 


-------------
“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: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 10:53
Originally posted by wowie wowie wrote:

maybe its just progressive (means stylistically unfixed) music with a heavy disposition to the rock genre.
if you then say its regressive, you can only mean that the progressive element, to build in new styles (which includes playing methods, instruments, genres) is less processed then in relation to another time (like the 70s).

As you have some subgenres of prog these days, the progressive element is of course not everywhere at maximum.
In some subgenres the progressive elements are pretty fixed to special methods.
And in every subgenre you have different types of progression.
The one progresses not much, hes only part of the genre that once was progressive but is pretty fixed now 8because its no new fusion or progress of styles), another progresses with the playing (so he plays symphonic rock but hes still progressive as he is doing a lots of creativity/progress/recombining in playing methods and instruments) and another one is progressive in more then one way (using a lots of different instruments and genres and so on).

math rock is a good example.
it is extremely progressive in terms of playing, but pretty unprogressive in terms of genre adaption.

but mostly in every genre and subgenre, you have somebody that breaks the principle, the grade of fixation, the actual balance of the system and reforming parts of it.

As long as the people are unclear of what prog rock/prog music is, it will be a hard argumentation as mostly everybody is talking about a different source. so it would be good if there would be a summation of the possible perspectives.


but one thing is clear, prog music lovers will not come to the perpective that prog music is regressing, this is just not possible because you have to be progressive to be a prog musician.

For fans of the prog rock, its not as easy to say this, because first of all it is historical dependent on definition and second because rock is kind of dated more and more.
There is a heavy problem to define many bands these days and so we call em all post-rock bands. just because they use e-guitar, drums and bass and are not playing in terms of Elvis, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.

back then, some things were progressive, but today, they are just old and 70s, today its just pure symphonic-rock and it was there many times and it isnt progressive any more due to an universal art/prog definition.
so there is a partial regression, specially in using different genres and in using instruments in some subgenres that came out of the new experimental/fusion/art/prog genre in the 70s.

Back then you were open in definition and you had to be extremely experimental and fusing in your approach.
Today, many just reproduce the FUSED structure from back then.
Thats why it is called retro-prog.

And why is retro-prog still prog?
because they are partially oepn in some elements.
Even if it is just the playing of their instruments.

And so, for some or even for many, this is not really prog, because it is extremely reproductive in many ways.
But it stil lcan be prog msuic if you classify it as a simple term of symphonic-folk-electric-experimental-rock.
but you have to be very exact here when it come to the percentual definition ;)


How is that? You mean to say that all those people ever since the 70s, who've been playing David Gilmour up his bum(some of em doing a marvellous job at that) - all are progressive because they're playing a brand of music called prog? 
This is what happens when you misunderstand the word prog and it's meaning. Prog is a style of music. Back when it was newly born, it was very much progressive - yet nowadays it's become a brand. Progressive is merely an adjective, which once could be attached to the style. Heck, when punk and post-punk hit the airwaves sometime near the mid to late 70s, they were the true progressive rock. Why? Because it was new and no-one had done it before. They basically took what The Who and other such garagey Mod bands were doing in the sixties, threw it in the blender with some fierce attitudes and, mostly, poorer playing. Be that as it may, they were still progressive for their time - even if the prog musicians of the day were doing far more complex and expansive stuff. Progressive rock doesn't equate complex music with hefty time sigs and the likes - the style prog does though.


-------------
“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: wowie
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 11:16
:)
no i dont want to say that. Im with you and can second your post s many others here.
i just fused my two posts and im very satisfied :D
hope you like it, here it comes:


Now i got it :D

if we say, prog rock is rock music with progressive elements, then we have to ask what exactly is progressive.

What elements used in music can be described as progressive?


One idea could be, that the progressive element can be restricted somehow.

To the „kind“ of music that were played by some bands back in the 70s.

So for coincidence a rock with some kind of experimental symphonic folk jazz electro influences.

No matter what you say now, it is some kind of that music and if it doesnt sound like one of the glorious prog gods from back then or isnt listed by the official prog publishes and social communitys, it is no prog.


Another idea of PROG ROCK or just PROG could be that

the additional composing and playing form is free and wanted

the additional song structure is free and wanted

the additional use of genres is free and wanted

the use of additional instruments is free and wanted

an additional unrepititive and free use of all musical elements is wanted


so we are not talking about EXPERIMENTAL and AVANT music, we are talking about an exclusive and enhanced (fusioned/recombined and maybe experimental) form of ROCK. RIO could be very similar to PROG but it differs in the exclusion of (NORMAL) ROCK structures in general where PROG could be open to that.


So now we have our definition, we can ask if modern prog rock isnt that or absolutely not progressive.

Rock in itself develops. So if we look at the rock in general, we can easily say it is progressive i think. You have massive rock bands that use any of the things we use to define prog rock.

They are not repititive, they use other instruments and genres and so on. You have all kinds of rock crossover acts, bands that fuses other genres and at the same time are being very progressive in their composing. And it goes and and on. There are coming more and more doing a lot of crazy things, you just have to explore - you will find everything you cant imagine. There are so many bands out there, you cant listen to all of them in your whole life. There is still repitition, but there is also a lot of development and the usual rock listener is already searching a lot for new and creative bands and they find them. They maybe dont know that this is progressive, but it is.

Best example are all the young people that listen to prog metal, and new rock like Muse, Mars Volta, Radiohead etc. This is prog rock.

If we look to those rock subgenres, that we list in Prog Archives, we can also say that all elements are still there but how much - and is this list representative of what we think is prog rock or prog music today and for all?

a) Are some bands who fulfill some kind of prog definition also very repititive in some other way?

b) How much can we progress the prog rock as a style? Can and do we (the doers and consumers) progress it?

a) can be very relative. As the progressivity also depends on the musicians and listeners background. But specially with the help of the subgenre of retro-rock we can say, that some elements of prog rock are not that fulfilled by some bands which we call progressive.

Not because they are technically bad musicians, its because the stuff they play isnt new to many others. Its complex, it combines different genres, but it is still a repititon of something that was already there. And it makes it not better if they are bad musicians.


But somehow, i would say they are still progressive, but maybe not that much then a band that is just labeled as a post-rock or indie band. And in relation to all possibilitys of music and all the elements you can use today and back then, they are also not that progressive maybe. But to answer this question precisely, you have to know how much bands there were back then and how much usage they made of the freedom they had back then.

But so it is extremely important to understand i think, that the definition of prog rock is „common rock definition“ today, or should we say, part or the problem of defining rock and mainstream music in general. And so there are bands outside the common prog rock genres, that are very progressive and maybe rock too and who are somehow, in relation to the expectation and musical consciousness of the listener, much more progressive then a symphonic rock band.


That brings us also to b)

and you should answer that for yourself!

:)


i just want to remember

It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it.“

Keith Emerson


Its more an attitude then a stringent style as Robert Fripp would say.


omhomunculus :) now im gonna chill to death!


oh btw if you still dont got me,
i think prog rock is still progressive, but i also think, that the rest of the rock and all other genres are minimum equally progressive. And that should be PROG music.
But hey, now we have PROG FUSION, maybe we will get some FREE PROG FUSION ;)




Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 11:17
Originally posted by Rainsnowwinter Rainsnowwinter wrote:

Being new to the scene, can't quite get this one. I mean most of the songs on the Dark Side have repetitive parts like verses and choruses (Money, Us & Them, ...), which leads to think that the album is not Progressive music and it is Pop?!
Did I miss something here? please explain.

You are still thinking in Pop terms.

You can't see Prog in terms of songs, but in terms of the whole record, specially Dark Side which is almost a conceptual album.

Money is just a movement of whole opus, and yes the repretition in this case is some sort of  variations over the same theme.

A Great Gig in the Sky with Claire Torry Improvisations is a great example on this, as a fact it's very interesting structure


-------------
            


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 15 2013 at 11:30
Originally posted by wowie wowie wrote:

:)
no i dont want to say that. Im with you and can second your post s many others here.
i just fused my two posts and im very satified :D
hope you like it, here it comes:


Now i got it :D

if we say, prog rock is rock music with progressive elements, then we have to ask what exactly is progressive.

What elements used in music can be described as progressive?


One idea could be, that the progressive element can be restricted somehow.

To the „kind“ of music that were played by some bands back in the 70s.

So for coincidence a rock with some kind of experimental symphonic folk jazz electro influences.

No matter what you say now, it is some kind of that music and if it doesnt sound like one of the glorious prog gods from back then or isnt listed by the official prog publishes and social communitys, it is no prog.


Another idea or PROG ROCK could be that

the additional composing and playing form is free and wanted

the additional song structure is free and wanted

the additional use of genres is free and wanted

the use of additional instruments is free and wanted

an additional unrepititive and free use of all musical elements is wanted


so we are not talking about EXPERIMENTAL and AVANT music, we are talking about an exclusive and enhanced (fusioned/recombined and maybe experimental) form of ROCK. RIO could be very similar to PROG but it differs in the exclusion of (NORMAL) ROCK structures in general where PROG could be open to that.


So now we have our definition, we can ask if modern prog rock isnt that or absolutely not progressive.

Rock in itself develops. So if we look at the rock in general, we can easily say it is progressive i think. You have massive rock bands that use any of the things we use to define prog rock.

They are not repititive, they use other instruments and genres and so on. You have all kinds of rock crossover acts, bands that fuses other genres and at the same time are being very progressive in their composing. And it goes and and on. There are coming more and more doing a lot of crazy things, you just have to explore - you will find everything you cant imagine. There are so many bands out there, you cant listen to all of them in your whole life. There is still repitition, but there is also a lot of development and the usual rock listener is already searching a lot for new and creative bands and they find them. They maybe dont know that this is progressive, but it is.

Best example are all the young people that listen to prog metal, and new rock like Muse, Mars Volta, Radiohead etc. This is prog rock.

If we look to those rock subgenres, that we list in Prog Archives, we can also say that all elements are still there but how much - and is this list representative of what we think is prog rock or prog music today and for all?

a) Are some bands who fulfill some kind of prog definition also very repititive in some other way?

b) How much can we progress the prog rock as a style? Can and do we (the doers and consumers) progress it?

a) can be very relative. As the progressivity also depends on the musicians and listeners background. But specially with the help of the subgenre of retro-rock we can say, that some elements of prog rock are not that fulfilled by some bands which we call progressive.

Not because they are technically bad musicians, its because the stuff they play isnt new to many others. Its complex, it combines different genres, but it is still a repititon of something that was already there. And it makes it not better if they are bad musicians.


But somehow, i would say they are still progressive, but maybe not that much then a band that is just labeled as a post-rock or indie band. And in relation to all possibilitys of music and all the elements you can use today and back then, they are also not that progressive maybe. But to answer this question precisely, you have to know how much bands there were back then and how much usage they made of the freedom they had back then.

But so it is extremely important to understand i think, that the definition of prog rock is „common rock definition“ today, or should we say, part or the problem of defining rock and mainstream music in general.


That brings us also to b)

and you should answer that for yourself!

:)


i just want to remember

It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it.“

Keith Emerson


Its more an attitude then a stringent style as Robert Fripp would say.


omhomunculus :) now im gonna chill to death!


oh btw if you still dont got me,
i think prog rock is still progressive, but i also think, that the rest of the rock and all other genres are minimum equally progressive.




I think I get the gist of what you're saying, although I may not entirely agree with youSmile

As for B) the sooner the musicians step outside of once tried and tested formulas and make music on their own accord, instead of what many bands do today, which is aiming for sub-genres and tags before they start making music, then half the battle is won. Of course Prog can evolve and progress, and it still does so, albeit at a very very slow pace imo.



-------------
“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



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