Print Page | Close Window

Is classical influence essential to prog rock?

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=96451
Printed Date: January 18 2022 at 18:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is classical influence essential to prog rock?
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: Is classical influence essential to prog rock?
Date Posted: December 26 2013 at 15:30
There's something I've become more and more confused about regarding the exact definition of "progressive rock" recently, in part because my own knowledge of music theory is very basic and I'm not sure exactly how to test the argument in practice.

I get the impression there's two contrasting definitions of the genre/movement. The first defines "progressive" as just thinking outside the box in terms of style and theme, progress here meaning moving the genre forwards and not really being a specific style. The second one has "progressive rock" refer to progress within a composition, as in abandoning the cyclical verse/chorus song structure of pop/rock tradition in favour of a classically inspired sonata format dominated by linear forwards progression. (I think this is the definition J. Derogatis uses in his book Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock) Under this definition bands like ELP, Genesis, King Crimson and Yes would be prog. However, groups like Hawkwind, Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd would at best have ten songs each that qualify as prog... instead being classified as "art rock" under this definition. (a categorization I'm still not sure exactly what means - when I first encountered it I saw it used as a synonym for progressive rock, but now I'm far from certain as you can see)

The plot thickens: Then there's the question of how much stuff like Captain Beefheart or much of Krautrock would count as prog under the second definition. Its classical influences come from very different sources (Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Varese etc.) and is more about deconstructing the building blocks or structural ideas behind music than constructing lengthy complex pieces of music.

Can anyone here clear things up for me? I'm curious to find out how the genre categorizations of "art rock" and "progressive rock" have evolved historically, in specific how much influence from classical music has been an essential part of the latter. Should mention that Derogatis' book uses the classical influence to draw the line between progressive rock and psychedelic rock instead, the latter I'm certainly fine with regarding as a "cultural movement" at least as much as a style of music.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook



Replies:
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: December 26 2013 at 16:16
The first bands labelled "progressive rock" generally had influences from one or more of these genres: classical, folk, jazz and avant-guarde. Some had no folk influences, some had no classical influences, etc. Historically speaking, the term "progressive rock" was first used in the UK; the same bands were called "Art Rock" in the USA. However, back in the UK artists like David Bowie and Roxy Music were referred to as "Art Rock". The term "progressive" as applied to music has been used for everything from jazz to techno.

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


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 08:31
Certain fans of the genre seem to want to make 'progressive rock' broad to the point of meaninglessness. Not every type of "creative" rock music is prog. Captain Beefheart is almost never considered prog outside of this site.

The second definition is right. Prog is the type of rock music that pushes the style to its height of complexity, which inherently means a predominant classical influence (up to postmodern). It loses its meaning entirely if it also includes minimalist groups. There are other terms for bands with jazz or folk but no classical influence. Jethro Tull is prog, but in a lesser degree than King Crimson.


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 09:50
It is quite difficult to make a difference between "Art Rock" and "Progressive Rock". The main reason is because the terms were created not to define the parameters of how the music was to be composed, orchestrated, instrumented, etc, but mainly to differentiate it from other forms of music, like soul, pop, country, etc.
As Steve Hackett once said in an interview "We were not trying to create Progressive music, but rather, we were attempting to compose the best music we could". 
The need of labeling genres, styles, tendencies, comes from music critics, not from the artists themselves. Miles Davis also said "I write the music, you label it" when talking to some music critics of his time, and I think this is mostly the norm for most artists, so either classical, folk, jazz or any other influence that artists choose to influence their compositions, it's the content and essence that matters more to them.
I personally divide music as "Music to dance to" and "Music to listen to". To dance, you don't need much complexity in your music, only a nice beat and a catchy tune; for music to listen to, the story chances of course, and orchestration, complexity, instrumentation, arrangements and many other factors become vital for your music. Obviously progressive music falls into the second category.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 11:39
Oddly enough other fans of this genre want to make it narrow to the point of meaninglessness...LOL

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 15:07
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

There's something I've become more and more confused about regarding the exact definition of "progressive rock" recently, in part because my own knowledge of music theory is very basic and I'm not sure exactly how to test the argument in practice.

I get the impression there's two contrasting definitions of the genre/movement. The first defines "progressive" as just thinking outside the box in terms of style and theme, progress here meaning moving the genre forwards and not really being a specific style. The second one has "progressive rock" refer to progress within a composition, as in abandoning the cyclical verse/chorus song structure of pop/rock tradition in favour of a classically inspired sonata format dominated by linear forwards progression. (I think this is the definition J. Derogatis uses in his book Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock) Under this definition bands like ELP, Genesis, King Crimson and Yes would be prog. However, groups like Hawkwind, Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd would at best have ten songs each that qualify as prog.....Jethro Tull ventured into other styles of music such as Blues , Jazz, and created a sometimes "Hard Rock" sound specifically with the usage of distorted guitar...WHICH!...differed from the guitar sounds in Genesis, ELP, K.C., and Yes. That may be a detailed reason as to why they are not considered Prog by authors of the subject..even though ELP played Blues/Rock n' Roll progressions in joke songs like "Are You Ready Eddy However...when listening to Tull's  performance at Carnegie Hall..one might notice Ian Anderson and Jon Evans playing an excerpt from Beethoven's Piano Sonata # 8 in C minor. and titled "Grave" - "Molto allegro e con brio. Another example of Classical in the early years of Tull is their Jazzy version of "Bouree In E minor" J.S.Bach. Later....with Thick As A Brick and A Passion Play...Blues and Jazz were less of an affair and Classical and Folk dominated their style. War Child, Minstrel In the Gallery, and Songs From the Wood contain a Classical influence along with a traditional Folk influence. The truly complex music of Jethro Tull ,(which is Prog), and would cause any band of seasoned musicians to pull their hair the hell out when rehearsing it...would be T.A.A.B. and A Passion Play. .
 
. instead being classified as "art rock" under this definition. (a categorization I'm still not sure exactly what means - when I first encountered it I saw it used as a synonym for progressive rock, but now I'm far from certain as you can see)

The plot thickens: Then there's the question of how much stuff like Captain Beefheart or much of Krautrock would count as prog under the second definition. Its classical influences come from very different sources (Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Varese etc.) and is more about deconstructing the building blocks or structural ideas behind music than constructing lengthy complex pieces of music.

Can anyone here clear things up for me? I'm curious to find out how the genre categorizations of "art rock" and "progressive rock" have evolved historically, in specific how much influence from classical music has been an essential part of the latter. Should mention that Derogatis' book uses the classical influence to draw the line between progressive rock and psychedelic rock instead, the latter I'm certainly fine with regarding as a "cultural movement" at least as much as a style of music.
I'm not sure how the catagorizations evolved for real. It was stated on this thread that "Art Rock" was the American term for Progressive Rock. I do recall this being true during the early 70's. The influence of Classical music in Prog from the very start was a study of sorts. The idea surfaced somehow to fuse actual Classical music with a Rock style. Anyone from the 70's who desired to accomplish that goal had to play Classical music on an instrument to begin with. Some Classical music was actually stolen/borrowed to create Prog signature lines. In the same way that the band Yes lifted the theme for "Rawhide" or whatever T.V. western it was....for the intro to "Yours Is No Disgrace". The intro to "The Prophet" on Time and a Word is lifted from either Holst or some compose I can't recall?......but anyway....the original idea was either to fuse Classical and Rock...making it obvious or writing music in such a way that no one was able to detect anything lifted at all. That is something defined as "practices" which "practices" are like secret knowledge. It's the method of designing something so well that the average person or even music fanatic cannot spot the notes that are pulled from a Classical composers piece. Musicians I knew during the 70's prog era....either took lessons for Classical ..which sometimes meant attending a university or already were Classically trained. Either way, they desired to fuse Classical music with Rock so they could tour, and perform in a Progressive Rock band.


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 15:11
I completely forgot what Manuel mentioned, that quite a few of the musicians initially classified as "progressive rock" rejected the categorization! (also Jethro Tull among them) Which is probably relevant to the discussion.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 21:17
I dunno...  It seems to me if you're going to get this strict about it you're going to eliminate most of space/psych, all of crossover, Krautrock, Progressive Electronic, most of Canterbury, half of Heavy Prog, Prog Folk, much of post-rock, all of math rock, and most of the prog metal subs.  And of course "Jazz Fusion is not Rock".

You'd probably be left with just Symph, perhaps it's (b*****d?) child Neo Prog, RPI (mostly Symph anyway!), most of RIO/Avant, Zeuhl and much of Eclectic.  Is that what you really want?  Not I!


-------------
--
Frank Swarbrick
Belief is not Truth.


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 21:41
I personally define progressive rock as "a complex form of rock music that fuses rock with non-rock genres such as jazz, classical, and folk."  I think that this definition includes a wide variety of bands while also being sufficiently exclusive: it accommodates every sub-genre on this site but also sets boundaries, i.e. you can't just play a folk song with electric guitar and drums and call it prog (because of the required element of complexity) but you also can't just write a complicated rock song and call it prog (because of the required element of non-rock elements in the music). 

This definition isn't perfect, and of course strict definitions like this really don't do justice to the way humans categorize things, but I think it is the best short explanation you can give, and I find it helpful to use when explaining to people what progressive rock is.  It doesn't include every band on this site but it covers most of them.  The article about prog posted on on PA (linked from the PA homepage) is a very good long-form explanation of the elements of progressive rock, in my opinion.

So in short, no, I don't think classical elements are needed to classify a musical piece/artist as progressive rock.  But I do think that non-rock influences (classical or otherwise) need to be present.


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: genbanks
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 22:02
I could say that every piece of rock with classical music influences would be Progressive Rock, but to be progressive rock is not necesary to have classical music influences.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 27 2013 at 22:27
No, but it helps.



Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 04:38
Originally posted by infocat infocat wrote:

I dunno...  It seems to me if you're going to get this strict about it you're going to eliminate most of space/psych, all of crossover, Krautrock, Progressive Electronic, most of Canterbury, half of Heavy Prog, Prog Folk, much of post-rock, all of math rock, and most of the prog metal subs.  And of course "Jazz Fusion is not Rock".

You'd probably be left with just Symph, perhaps it's (b*****d?) child Neo Prog, RPI (mostly Symph anyway!), most of RIO/Avant, Zeuhl and much of Eclectic.  Is that what you really want?  Not I!


Just a clarification: I don't want to get this strict, indeed it's the first and more inclusive definition I subscribe to myself! The second definition I mention is one I often encounter often in debates about genre definitions, though, and I've been familiar with it ever since reading Derogatis' book. I took it with a grain of salt there, however, because he's a bit inconsistent about applying it.

But yes, the "no prog without classical influence" crowd I've discussed with in person do indeed insist that ProgArchives is way too inclusive whenever the subject comes up.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 05:08
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

But yes, the "no prog without classical influence" crowd I've discussed with in person do indeed insist that ProgArchives is way too inclusive whenever the subject comes up.

Not surprising somehow, but who exactly are these numbskulls?   Sounds like some fifteen year-olds who heard Yes just last year and assume if something is complex and arranged it must be based on Classical.  



Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 05:16
Several people I know on Facebook, who are in their 30s and are actually pretty knowledgeable about rock music as a result of being in bands themselves... they've probably been into progressive music for longer than I have!

(and, no, none of them have made that argument you describe about complex arrangements always being a sign of classical influence)


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 05:22
I would say Classical helps in the way that all musics help Prog; which is to say it doesn't hurt.  



Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 05:48
I am not sure people who subscribe to the second definition of prog rock realise exactly how restrictive it is.  They too ultimately rely more on elimination (of structure or approach that is too close to basic rock and roll music) than an exact application of sonata structure, i.e, anything that is long winded, somewhat complex and not just a jam is prog rock.  

I should also add that elucidation of complex melodic or harmonic ideas is not the sole preserve of classical music.  It is very much prevalent in jazz, just depends on what jazz you are thinking of.  The similarities between say Blue Rondo a la Truck (Brubeck) and The Collapso (National Health) are easy to see and if The Collapso is not prog, I don't know what is. 


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 07:19
Rogerthat said: "I should also add that elucidation of complex melodic or harmonic ideas is not the sole preserve of classical music. It is very much prevalent in jazz"
 
Jazz, Blues... one of the first and essential roots of the Rock & Roll. Unfortunately, I've never been really interested in that genres, I know almost nothing of about that. However I would like to know which pieces of Jazz have much prevalent complex melodic or harmonic ideas... I think that would be the better way to introduce myself in these genres, by the way what's the difference beteween "Rythm & Blues" and "Soul"?


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 07:25
I think you could start with that Dave Brubeck piece I mentioned, or the album as such - Time Out.  More so because Brubeck is an acknowledged influence on prog rock.  

As for the difference between soul and R&B, I am not very clear myself because my interest in either does not begin before at least the late 60s whereas the differences were probably laid down a bit earlier.  I reckon R&B is the older genre and soul is essentially a more vocal based and gospel influenced variety of R&B. 


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 07:28
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I think you could start with that Dave Brubeck piece I mentioned, or the album as such - Time Out.  More so because Brubeck is an acknowledged influence on prog rock.  

As for the difference between soul and R&B, I am not very clear myself because my interest in either does not begin before at least the late 60s whereas the differences were probably laid down a bit earlier.  I reckon R&B is the older genre and soul is essentially a more vocal based and gospel influenced variety of R&B. 
 
 
Thank you.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 09:05
I've read Derogatis' book and while I find it curiously interesting, I think he gets hung up on all the wrong things. He should've kept the focus on the music instead of getting into all the different stickers. Just my opinion though, but the more time I spend on PA, the more I realise how many different understandings folks have of these 'genres', 'styles', 'stickers', 'movements' and so forth. What people thought of as Art Rock back in the day is now something completely different, and the same goes for Prog and Krautrock. Personally I've never considered the latter as Prog - nor do I find a lot of what you'll find in psych, avant, electronic and zeuhl, to be Prog. They're branchings of an extremely imaginative surge of music that first started out in the late 60s and therefore fit quite nicely up in this mother.....but I'd never call the music Prog.

-------------
“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: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 15:08
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I am not sure people who subscribe to the second definition of prog rock realise exactly how restrictive it is.  They too ultimately rely more on elimination (of structure or approach that is too close to basic rock and roll music) than an exact application of sonata structure, i.e, anything that is long winded, somewhat complex and not just a jam is prog rock.


See, that's one of the areas where it becomes a liability that my familiarity with music theory extends only to what you need to know in order to play an instrument in a group setting. So I have no way of really testing whether how many progressive rock compositions' narrative structure really fit into the definition of a proper sonata form, or the extent to which rock instrumentation even can accomodate classical composition principles. I have met quite a few classically trained musicians who felt any approximations of neoclassicism by rock groups they've heard to be awkward at best if not unintentionally hilarious at worst, and even more jazz enthusiasts who felt the same about fusion jazz!

-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 16:04
The second definition is by far the correct one. As I keep saying music doesn't progress. Only songs progress

-------------
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: dr wu23
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 16:04
I don't think its 'essential' but it certainly started out that way with most if not all of the great classic prog bands from 1969 into the 70's and on.

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


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 16:17
It's kind of funny that while I love much music that
can only be considered Prog Rock, it's still "bubble gum"
music for the most part.  For composers who aren't going
for that youth market, liking Prog Rock puts one in a fantasy
world in which its harder to take classical music seriously.
And if you are composing music that fits more into a serious
genre than rock really can per se, then liking Prog Rock too
much can divorce you from your muse.  If you can even
understand what I am talking about, I think it's important to
take breaks from all rock music, and listen to more Jazz,
or World Music (even going back to anthropological recordings),
and then look at your own music again.  Maybe this is the
wrong forum for these kinds of thoughts. 

Why would I say this?  Because great prog rock is largely
augmented by advanced studio engineering and recording techniques.
One rarely ever hears raw sounding prog that sounds great.
A classical work can sound great being a bad recording on a 
decent-enough piano.







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




Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 16:58

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

There's something I've become more and more confused about regarding the exact definition of "progressive rock" recently, in part because my own knowledge of music theory is very basic and I'm not sure exactly how to test the argument in practice.
...

Before, a lot of this discussion can take place, some of this "progressive" music has to be elevated to a realm that is considerably better studied and discussed in academic environs, than rock, pop, jazz or progressive. It's easy to think (and say) what you did, mostly because the first things you learn used to be a jingle or two that came from classical music, or nowadays, the first 3 or 5 notes from a famous song from a musical, movie or radio. But is it classical music? I consider it so by the folks my age. Others here DON'T, and consider it just pop music.

Being that "progressive" like all the other types and styles of music, are STILL a part of the social involvement, I am inclined to believe that there are some bits and pieces that filter through, although there are also schools of music, that INTENTIONALLY avoid the "western music concepts", as was the case with the majority of the krautrock folks, in the very early days, who were very specific about that.

That suggests that there are, more or less, two ways to learn things. One on your own, without any ideas or teachers, and Kasper Hauser showed us silly and stuffy easily enough, OR, the only option is, that you have to learn all these jingles and get so comfortable playing them, so you can be good enough to play with a band, and other folks.

Rock music, threw a wrench in a lot of that, because most of it was reactionary, and not exactly designed and composed music. These days, as has been the effort for 20/30 years, there is a very serious school of folks out there that might be playing metal, or this or that, and they are NOT beginners, and in fact they left the classical areas of music, because it was too limiting, and all of a sudden in their rock or jazz group they are fooling around with musical ideas that some folks would consider more adventurous than the "history" of music.

Remember that this "history" is based on a model that is very academically thought out, and defined, and the majority of music of today, that beingrock, jazz, blues and the like, is not considered music enough, or good enough, to be more than just simplistic music that would not merit its entering the annals of history.

However, I think that "electricity" has made major changes in that, and in fact, it has been the major cause of almost killing classical music, and the next 50 to 100 years will be very interesting in that area, if the world survives that far, or course, but that's another story and Dean and I are not interested in that discussion, though we might enjoy talking about monkees and bones, though no one ever thought that it would be one day considered "music".

(Sidebar) Just reading DT's book right now, and the number of people crappin on them for the depth and definition of the music is way out of line. It's like saying that the audience has to be stupid to appreciate all that, or dead, to not like their own ideas (not DT's) of what pop music should be! It is, by far, one of the nastiest discussions out there, btw, and a very sad one. It shouldn't matter what instrument you use to push music ... did it happen ot nor, and is it written, and in DT's case? Yep. It is defined and written!

-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 17:50
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

It's kind of funny that while I love much music that can only be considered Prog Rock, it's still "bubble gum" music for the most part.  For composers who aren't going for that youth market, liking Prog Rock puts one in a fantasy world in which its harder to take classical music seriously.  And if you are composing music that fits more into a serious genre than rock really can per se, then liking Prog Rock too much can divorce you from your muse.  If you can even understand what I am talking about, I think it's important to take breaks from all rock music, and listen to more Jazz, or World Music (even going back to anthropological recordings),and then look at your own music again.  Maybe this is the wrong forum for these kinds of thoughts.


Sorry, but that's ridiculous.  Progressive rock (and many other forms of popular music) can be just as "serious" as classical and jazz music.  To deny such is to basically ignore, say, all of the music on this site.  It's important for musicians focused in any genre to listen to material outside of their specialty. 

Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

Why would I say this?  Because great prog rock is largely augmented by advanced studio engineering and recording techniques.  One rarely ever hears raw sounding prog that sounds great.  A classical work can sound great being a bad recording on a decent-enough piano.


Um...whether the musicians use advanced recording techniques is extremely dependent upon what kind of prog (and what artist) you're talking about.  And if you listen to the live performances of most of the top-tier progressive rock bands in the world, their ability to play their material live pretty much proves that they're not just mediocre musicians hiding behind the studio.

Raw-sounding prog that sounds great?  Go listen to disc 3 of Rush's live album Different Stages and you'll hear some.  Black Sabbath's debut?  Vapor Trails?  Krautrock? 


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 17:53
Classical influence is not essential to prog rock, but boy, do i like it when it is there. Triumvirat and ELP come to mind, but of course, there are many others.
             And who killed classical music? A very serious question, I'd have to think long and hard to give a proper answer to that. The golden era of classical music composition and interpretation, from roughly 1850 to 1950, or so, is far behind us. I'm very interested in that world, and really dig it when prog bands, even though coming from later in time, quote the classics, though something can be progressive without doing so.


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 18:01
Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

Classical influence is not essential to prog rock, but boy, do i like it when it is there. Triumvirat and ELP come to mind, but of course, there are many others.
             And who killed classical music? A very serious question, I'd have to think long and hard to give a proper answer to that. The golden era of classical music composition and interpretation, from roughly 1850 to 1950, or so, is far behind us. I'm very interested in that world, and really dig it when prog bands, even though coming from later in time, quote the classics, though something can be progressive without doing so.


Nobody killed classical music.  It is simply not prevalent in mainstream culture at this time.  Many factors, from economics to technology, have brought about the advent of modern popular music in mainstream Western culture, but they have not killed classical music.  There are still many great classical composers alive today, from John Mackey to Carlyle Sharpe and the like.


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 18:12
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

Classical influence is not essential to prog rock, but boy, do i like it when it is there. Triumvirat and ELP come to mind, but of course, there are many others.
             And who killed classical music? A very serious question, I'd have to think long and hard to give a proper answer to that. The golden era of classical music composition and interpretation, from roughly 1850 to 1950, or so, is far behind us. I'm very interested in that world, and really dig it when prog bands, even though coming from later in time, quote the classics, though something can be progressive without doing so.


Nobody killed classical music.  It is simply not prevalent in mainstream culture at this time.  Many factors, from economics to technology, have brought about the advent of modern popular music in mainstream Western culture, but they have not killed classical music.  There are still many great classical composers alive today, from John Mackey to Carlyle Sharpe and the like.
No one can compose like Berlioz, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, no one can sing like Caruso, Flagstad, no one can conduct like Toscanini, Beecham, Furtwangler, no one can play like Schnabel, Arrau, Backhaus. Yes, it has died. Except for the writings and recordings of that previous era, which a lot of people are sadly oblivious to.


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 18:47








Classical music is alive and well.


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 19:50
Classical Music is very alive and well.  John Adams is proof of that, even Concerto for Harpsichord by Nyman is great.
A lot of great classical composers composed music for film, Honegger came up with a score for Gance's Napoleon,
which wasn't used but there were others.  Great classical composers today are often film composers.  

Back a few posts someone said something I said was ridiculous.  While I generally don't respond to people who
start off a dialog like that, I will say that Prog Rock generally needs to be pumped up to "rock standards" in the
studio before the mass of Prog Rock fans will look at it, understand it, let alone buy it.  It's a sonic level, not at
a level of the intervals between notes alone, which is how classical music can stand up.




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




Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 20:27
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:


Back a few posts someone said something I said was ridiculous.  While I generally don't respond to people who
start off a dialog like that, I will say that Prog Rock generally needs to be pumped up to "rock standards" in the
studio before the mass of Prog Rock fans will look at it, understand it, let alone buy it.  It's a sonic level, not at
a level of the intervals between notes alone, which is how classical music can stand up.




That is not even close to being true.  At all.  You still haven't explained the appeal of live performances (prog or not) which unless you are a very popular band playing in a very large venue are usually managed with only basic EQ and reverb; you haven't addressed the actual quality of the music, only the tastes of the people who buy it, and haven't proved a word of what you have said.  Forgive me if I am a bit snappy; probably wasn't right to characterize your opinion as "ridiculous right off the bat and I apologize for being rude, but please understand that as a rock musician myself I have great interest in the potential of the genre and when people ignorantly deride the work of me and my fellow rock musicians it doesn't really go over well with me.  I am a composer, not only of rock music but also of classical and jazz music; I have a pretty good idea of how to discern musical quality across genres because I write the darn stuff.  Would you like me to provide you with a detailed musical analysis of some progressive rock tunes to prove my point?  Because I can do that.


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 22:03
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I am not sure people who subscribe to the second definition of prog rock realise exactly how restrictive it is.  They too ultimately rely more on elimination (of structure or approach that is too close to basic rock and roll music) than an exact application of sonata structure, i.e, anything that is long winded, somewhat complex and not just a jam is prog rock.


See, that's one of the areas where it becomes a liability that my familiarity with music theory extends only to what you need to know in order to play an instrument in a group setting. So I have no way of really testing whether how many progressive rock compositions' narrative structure really fit into the definition of a proper sonata form, or the extent to which rock instrumentation even can accomodate classical composition principles. I have met quite a few classically trained musicians who felt any approximations of neoclassicism by rock groups they've heard to be awkward at best if not unintentionally hilarious at worst, and even more jazz enthusiasts who felt the same about fusion jazz!

I am definitely an ignoramus when it comes to music theory.  So I have gone and read Mark's (Cert1fied) reviews because he seemed to be well versed in it.  IIRC, he said there was no evidence of sonata structure in the entire Selling England By The Pound album.  I doubt he considered Close To The Edge sonata either.  Those are among the 'must haves' of prog rock so if we are going with the second definition, it will likely exclude a lot more than just those groups that the purists would like to get rid of from PA. TongueSo I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe some progheads just equate anything in long form with sonata and that need not be the case at all. The most likely source of non-verse/chorus based structures is classical music but again, as I said earlier, that is not the only source and there are other traditions that involve exploration of melodic or harmonic ideas at length (i.e. not constrained by the pop structure).  I suspect some intentional or unintentional elitism involved in the reactions of classical or jazz musicians to prog rock.  Oscar Peterson played with Keith Emerson once and I don't think he would have done that unless he had a modicum of respect for his abilities.  Nevertheless, prog rock is imo a more freestyle synthesis of rock and classical/jazz rather than a rigorous application of the latter in rock, so it may not adhere to the 'rules' as strictly as hardcore classical or jazz listeners or musicians expect.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 22:37
No

BTW
Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

No one can compose like Berlioz, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, no one can sing like Caruso, Flagstad, no one can conduct like Toscanini, Beecham, Furtwangler, no one can play like Schnabel, Arrau, Backhaus. Yes, it has died. Except for the writings and recordings of that previous era, which a lot of people are sadly oblivious to.

The reason no one can is because they belong to their era.  Set  a different standard and they will fall short of that, don't you think?  Could any of these decomposing composers have made Kind Of Blue? Wink

Anyway I'm more of a Debussy fan. Big smile


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 23:51
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:


Back a few posts someone said something I said was ridiculous.  While I generally don't respond to people who
start off a dialog like that, I will say that Prog Rock generally needs to be pumped up to "rock standards" in the
studio before the mass of Prog Rock fans will look at it, understand it, let alone buy it.  It's a sonic level, not at
a level of the intervals between notes alone, which is how classical music can stand up.




That is not even close to being true.  At all.  You still haven't explained the appeal of live performances (prog or not) which unless you are a very popular band playing in a very large venue are usually managed with only basic EQ and reverb; you haven't addressed the actual quality of the music, only the tastes of the people who buy it, and haven't proved a word of what you have said.  Forgive me if I am a bit snappy; probably wasn't right to characterize your opinion as "ridiculous right off the bat and I apologize for being rude, but please understand that as a rock musician myself I have great interest in the potential of the genre and when people ignorantly deride the work of me and my fellow rock musicians it doesn't really go over well with me.  I am a composer, not only of rock music but also of classical and jazz music; I have a pretty good idea of how to discern musical quality across genres because I write the darn stuff.  Would you like me to provide you with a detailed musical analysis of some progressive rock tunes to prove my point?  Because I can do that.

I am not saying qualitatively classical music is superior to rock music.  I am only saying that
classical music will never have that slick, sheeny coating that rock music has.  And, by surrounding
oneself in it, you might be dulled to the more subtle aspects of a new music, if it isn't produced by
a good producer in a studio with intelligent and creative engineers. 

I'm a big fan of 1970's African American gospel music.  I wouldn't say classical music is superior to that.
While classical music can contain a lot of resolutions of difficult concepts, patterns that may influence
the work of an architect in 100 years, it's still not good black gospel music.  



(*Note, I had to edit this because I said is instead of the word "isn't" in the following: "And, by surrounding
oneself in it, you might be dulled to the more subtle aspects of a new music, if it isn't produced by
a good producer in a studio with intelligent and creative engineers." )



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




Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: December 28 2013 at 23:52
Nope. Not all prog has a strong classical vibe. Some has more of a jazz or electronic or folk vibe. It depends on the band. 


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 00:09
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:


Back a few posts someone said something I said was ridiculous.  While I generally don't respond to people who
start off a dialog like that, I will say that Prog Rock generally needs to be pumped up to "rock standards" in the
studio before the mass of Prog Rock fans will look at it, understand it, let alone buy it.  It's a sonic level, not at
a level of the intervals between notes alone, which is how classical music can stand up.




That is not even close to being true.  At all.  You still haven't explained the appeal of live performances (prog or not) which unless you are a very popular band playing in a very large venue are usually managed with only basic EQ and reverb; you haven't addressed the actual quality of the music, only the tastes of the people who buy it, and haven't proved a word of what you have said.  Forgive me if I am a bit snappy; probably wasn't right to characterize your opinion as "ridiculous right off the bat and I apologize for being rude, but please understand that as a rock musician myself I have great interest in the potential of the genre and when people ignorantly deride the work of me and my fellow rock musicians it doesn't really go over well with me.  I am a composer, not only of rock music but also of classical and jazz music; I have a pretty good idea of how to discern musical quality across genres because I write the darn stuff.  Would you like me to provide you with a detailed musical analysis of some progressive rock tunes to prove my point?  Because I can do that.

I am not saying qualitatively classical music is superior to rock music.  I am only saying that
classical music will never have that slick, sheeny coating that rock music has.  And, by surrounding
oneself in it, you might be dulled to the more subtle aspects of a new music, if it is produced by
a good producer in a studio with intelligent and creative engineers. 

I'm a big fan of 1970's African American gospel music.  I wouldn't say classical music is superior to that.
While classical music can contain a lot of resolutions of difficult concepts, patterns that may influence
the work of an architect in 100 years, it's still not good black gospel music.  


That's not what you said before.

Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

It's kind of funny that while I love much music that can only be considered Prog Rock, it's still "bubble gum" music for the most part


Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:


And if you are composing music that fits more into a serious genre than rock really can per se, then liking Prog Rock too much can divorce you from your muse.


You didn't say "superior," but you did say it was "bubble gum music" and inherently less "serious" than classical music.  Which isn't true.  Not even close.

It also isn't true that rock music has a "slick, sheeny coating."  A lot of rock music (including progressive rock) is raw, unrefined, and lo-fi.  The type of rock music that fits your description is mainstream pop rock/hard rock/alternative rock.  Some forms of prog do also.  But you are ignoring most of the music on this site.  Once again I repeat myself: Krautrock, heavy prog, some forms of prog metal, prog folk, RIO/Avant, countless artists besides these broad subgenre generalizations, et cetera et cetera et cetera.


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 00:46
OK, this is my last post in reference to you, as I really am not interested
in dialoging with you because I can sense the motivation behind what you're
saying. 

You can interpolate whatever you want into my words and I will admit that
"bubble gum" does sound negative to most, but it's not meant to be by my
sense of the term.  I will speak in any way I please because I think enough people
with a mature perspective will understand what I mean.  That's not saying
their opinion is right, and yours is wrong.  

The type of music that fits my description is most of the music on this site,
which I've heard a lot of.  Some of it I won't like, and it's still Prog Rock.
I suppose Genesis music is not heavily produced?  By lo-fi, think of a piano
in a room.  I would say all the things you mentioned in your last sentence
have more going into it than what the band sounds like just playing raw.
And even so, since it's popular to admit our love of garage band and other
raw environments, my next statement might open up some more debate.
The music itself is made into rock which is idiosyncratic and for people that
are looking for real experimental music that is also beautiful, that gets old
quickly when done in a "Prog" fashion.  Maybe insert some of the sites older
conversations about what Prog is here, etc.   








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




Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 04:33
I prefer to think of prog as a combination of artists with an experimental take on rock music and artists heavily inspired by these experimental takes on rock music(although not necessarily being experimental themselves) and everything in between. I don't believe that certain alternative(so not rock) influences are necessary for something to be prog.
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

decomposing composers
lol


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


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 06:48

No way, OF COURSE it was not and NEVER is going to be essential for a good prog band. However, by now I'm convinced that the complex melodic or harmonic ideas from the Classical Music helped much more the superb classic prog bands than any other genre, until I get to know some SUPERB jazz, or superb folk, etc.  I'm looking forward to check out Dave Brubeck pieces as soon as I can, in order to either put an end to this question or opening a new world of majestic jazz pieces, as it happened to me with Classical Music.



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


"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB


Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 07:17
I think the second definition in the original post is more or less correct.  My viewpoint is very similar.  Just doing something that is not usually done in rock doesn't make progressive rock, otherwise many things such as industrial rock or bands like The Velvet Underground would be "progressive rock" which they clearly aren't.  Even some UK punk rock could under such a definition be considered "progressive rock" because those people did break parts of the rock conventions!  Not all creative, unconventional or in the basic sense of the word "progressive" rock music is "progressive rock", which is just a conventional term for a particular current in rock music.

Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd are progressive rock bands, though, as their music does progress; even if they are perhaps less prototypically progressive rock than Yes or Genesis, and are more rooted in blues (JT also in folk music) than other classical progressive rock bands.

Outside rock music, the label "progressive" has been used in ways that have nothing to do with progressive rock.  Progressive jazz was a short-lived attempt by some California bandleaders (most notably Stan Kenton) of the late 1940s to combine big band jazz and neoclassicism; it remained a footnote in the history of jazz and did not meaningfully contribute to the prehistory of progressive rock.  In the electronic dance music scene, "progressive" refers to a particular type of track structure in which more and more layers of sound are progressively layered onto a groove, creating a texture that gradually becomes denser towards the end of the track.  This also has nothing to do with progressive rock; however, it did create some confusion as some rock journalists applied the term "progressive" to rock music with a similar structure as the progressive electronic styles, such as Tool or Isis.  (This, however, doesn't mean that this kind of "progressive rock" was rooted in progressive dance.  In fact, it owes more to industrial and psychedelic rock and post-rock; but it has nothing to do with progressive rock in the conventional sense, either.)

It is not necessary, though, to consciously draw on "classical" music, e.g. by writing a fugato, or a piece in sonata form.  However, anything in rock music that goes beyond the usual rock song format and involves a significant musical development will probably in some ways be similar to something in the Baroque-Classical-Romantic-Modernist tradition.



-------------
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."



Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 09:11
That's a good point, there is also something to the second definition's favour I can't believe hasn't been mentioned yet: Under the first definition it would be somewhat difficult to fit "new old school" prog rock bands under the same category as their influences, unless they've got a distinctive enough signature style.

Regarding Pink Floyd's status as progressive rock, Derogatis argues against it on the basis of 1) the band members themselves rejecting the categorization just like Jethro Tull's did 2) the classical elements in their music being nowhere as prominent as in what King Crimson were doing at the same time, or as integral to their sound as Genesis'.

-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 09:25
the most ifluentual musical genre in prog rock is IMO  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballad" rel="nofollow - Ballad  and what is featured as main themes in ballad style of tradition,   ballad is a form of verse, often a  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative" rel="nofollow - narrative  set to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music" rel="nofollow - music  (Peter Gabriel and Ian Anderson comes to mind). Ballads were particularly characteristic of the popular poetry and song of the British Isles from the later  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval" rel="nofollow - medieval  period until the 19th century

but it took a keft turn in  the 19s and 00s modern time  but still The form was often used by  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poet" rel="nofollow - poets  and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composer" rel="nofollow - composers  from the 18th century onwards to produce lyrical ballads. In the later 19th century it took on the meaning of a slow form of popular love song and the term is now often used as synonymous with any love song, particularly the pop or rock power ballad.






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


Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 09:26
Arguing about music is like making love to a chainsaw.

Or something.


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


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 09:37
I Would say nothing is ever 'essential' when honing certain influences in music weather it's from the classic period or modern period, however it is important to utilize your influences well since we are a race of creatures that prides itself in sharing information with others spread over a large period of time to go and develope as a specie. This is collectively how we grow and evolve as a race or specie if you will. So, mainly I'd say its not essential to look back at the classic period, but I would say its very important to do so. It's tough to be relevant as a new or even old Artist that doesn't have some defining or relevant influences in one's music. Every artist music comes from something or is inspired by someone.
It's true. It really is weather we want to believe it or not, but it doesn't mean that individually and uniqueness is compromised. Some people confuse 'influence' with copycating and that is incorrect.

As a musician or growing artist we all need a 'base' weather it be for creativity or for merely a starting point (inspiration) to create a piece of music in the first place. That's all there is to it I believe.

In music. Something doesn't come from nothing, so weather a young-inspiring musician wants to reflect on more of the classical period for music rather than the modern period it makes no difference because due to this point I am making, the music will have to stem from either the classical or modern period. It's not mandatory but it's really hard to Create something relevant or interesting without some musicial influence both from modern or classical. You won't make any money either. :(

-------------
If I get a break it is Prog Time.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 10:13
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

[QUOTE=brainstormer]It's kind of funny that while I love much music that can only be considered Prog Rock, it's still "bubble gum" music for the most part.  For composers who aren't going for that youth market, liking Prog Rock puts one in a fantasy world in which its harder to take classical music seriously. 
 ...

 
So you are suggesting that Mozart, Bach, and many other composers never created "bubble gum" stuff?
 
Hmmm ... I'm wondering what music you are really listening to!
 
Yuummmy yummy yummy I got love on my tummy ... yeah yeah I got it, now!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 10:22
Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

 No one can compose like Berlioz, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, no one can sing like Caruso, Flagstad, no one can conduct like Toscanini, Beecham, Furtwangler, no one can play like Schnabel, Arrau, Backhaus. Yes, it has died. Except for the writings and recordings of that previous era, which a lot of people are sadly oblivious to.
 
I tend to agree. But then none of these folks could write like The doors, Amon Duul 2, Guru Guru, ELP, and Genesis and many others.
 
It's comparatively speaking, and we're mixing up the discussion. There won't be another Pavarotti for at least 50 years and the next one will likely rise off rock music, mostly because "serious" music schools are not giving a whole lot of attention to "music". Their definition excludes anything from 1950 on, so to speak!
 
So, yeah, it has died to a degree, but that killing was of its own making, and Ian Anderson satirized in one album cover! Notice that the ballerina was not Jim, Janis or Jimi! And where was the audience?
 
Samething here locally, when the local orchestra thinks that Pink Martini is the answer to bring in a couple of sexy women to show off in front of the orchestra to make people think that the music is better! What else is new?
 
But, a lot of the modern opera houses and concert halls are at fault. They could easily bring in folks that would help their sales and create fusions that would be different and trippy, but they won't, and instead bring in names that you and I do not care about, and they are not that good anyway! Why would I spend money on Blah and Blah Smith on the flute when Ian Anderson is far better and more interesting than anything they play? Same thing for violin. Why would I spend money on some idiot, when Jean Luc Ponty can dance all around him/her and make their music sound down right boring?
 
That's a real problem, but until those instructors and light keepers of the modern orchestras wake up, it will continue to be dead! I even made a suggestion to the guy here in Portland about doing some Frank Zappa. His response? That isn't music!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 11:04
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

 No one can compose like Berlioz, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, no one can sing like Caruso, Flagstad, no one can conduct like Toscanini, Beecham, Furtwangler, no one can play like Schnabel, Arrau, Backhaus. Yes, it has died. Except for the writings and recordings of that previous era, which a lot of people are sadly oblivious to.
 
I tend to agree. But then none of these folks could write like The doors, Amon Duul 2, Guru Guru, ELP, and Genesis and many others.
 
It's comparatively speaking, and we're mixing up the discussion. There won't be another Pavarotti for at least 50 years and the next one will likely rise off rock music, mostly because "serious" music schools are not giving a whole lot of attention to "music". Their definition excludes anything from 1950 on, so to speak!
 
So, yeah, it has died to a degree, but that killing was of its own making, and Ian Anderson satirized in one album cover! Notice that the ballerina was not Jim, Janis or Jimi! And where was the audience?
 
Samething here locally, when the local orchestra thinks that Pink Martini is the answer to bring in a couple of sexy women to show off in front of the orchestra to make people think that the music is better! What else is new?
 
But, a lot of the modern opera houses and concert halls are at fault. They could easily bring in folks that would help their sales and create fusions that would be different and trippy, but they won't, and instead bring in names that you and I do not care about, and they are not that good anyway! Why would I spend money on Blah and Blah Smith on the flute when Ian Anderson is far better and more interesting than anything they play? Same thing for violin. Why would I spend money on some idiot, when Jean Luc Ponty can dance all around him/her and make their music sound down right boring?
 
That's a real problem, but until those instructors and light keepers of the modern orchestras wake up, it will continue to be dead! I even made a suggestion to the guy here in Portland about doing some Frank Zappa. His response? That isn't music!
Thanks for your response, some good points made.


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 12:15
No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical.

BTW, US bands, such as Zappa's, were always referred to distinctly as "Art Rock" in my experience. I had never heard of British bands referred to with that term in the US, as a prior post asserted.


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 12:34
^ Zappa is definitely PROG. I don't know how that could be disputed otherwise.
;)

-------------
If I get a break it is Prog Time.


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 12:46
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:









Classical music is alive and well.


This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular?
Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.



Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 12:52
From PA;s own definition page header:
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition

Form: Progressive rock songs either avoid common popular music song structures of verse-chorus-bridge, or blur the formal distinctions by extending sections or inserting musical interludes, often with exaggerated dynamics to heighten contrast between sections. Classical forms are often inserted or substituted, sometimes yielding entire suites, building on the traditional medleys of earlier rock bands. Progressive rock songs also often have extended instrumental passages, marrying the classical solo tradition with the improvisational traditions of jazz and psychedelic rock. All of these tend to add length to progressive rock songs, which may last longer than twenty minutes.



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


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 13:45
I grew up in my country with all kinds of music derived from the Afro rythms largely "diffused": jazz(there´s controversies about its root), samba, bossa nova, blues, rap, funk, etc. I've got to respect their numerous genius of these genres of music as part of everyone's personal preferences.

But I see in this FORUM people trying to personally describe with WORDS the variable extent of the diverse genres of music in a prog rock composition - it would be good to remind that WORDS are quite limited, NOT the music, which doesn't have limits of expression.

Someone said classical music died?!  Oh GOD !... If Classical Music dies I'll no longer have to wait for the reborn of NEW GENIUS of music enlarging the list of my favorite ones (Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Tchaikowsky, Chopin, Rossini...etc), is there anything worst than that ??

Obviously my long date preferences in Prog Rock were the different classical influences along the history of prog. And that will always be present, i.e. this music will never die, as of course also will never die the music of legend Rock bands & composers like Pink Floyd, The Who, Eric Clapton, Steve Hackett, Steve Howe, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, The Moody Blues...etc... (in fact, not all of these are "PROG").


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


"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB


Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 14:25
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

That's a good point, there is also something to the second definition's favour I can't believe hasn't been mentioned yet: Under the first definition it would be somewhat difficult to fit "new old school" prog rock bands under the same category as their influences, unless they've got a distinctive enough signature style.


Yes, the punctus saliens is that progressive rock in the conventional sense just isn't the same as "rock that is (in some sense) progressive", the same way not every black bird is a blackbird.  There is a lot of rock that is in some way progressive that has nothing to do with progressive rock, and there are many "retro-prog" bands who aren't really progressive because they just do what other progressive rock bands have done before them, and that notwithstanding - or rather thereby - share in the progressive rock tradition.

Quote Regarding Pink Floyd's status as progressive rock, Derogatis argues against it on the basis of 1) the band members themselves rejecting the categorization just like Jethro Tull's did 2) the classical elements in their music being nowhere as prominent as in what King Crimson were doing at the same time, or as integral to their sound as Genesis'.


Ad 1): King Crimson rejected that categorization, too.  Ad 2): Sure.  There are fewer classical elements and there is more blues in PF's music than in most of the others'.



-------------
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."



Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 15:42
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical.

BTW, US bands, such as Zappa's, were always referred to distinctly as "Art Rock" in my experience. I had never heard of British bands referred to with that term in the US, as a prior post asserted.


Originally posted by progbethyname progbethyname wrote:

^ Zappa is definitely PROG. I don't know how that could be disputed otherwise.
;)

I agree, though I know some would not be so like-minded. And I've said elsewhere that he's even the first Prog musician (and one of my favorites), but that doesn't necessarily make him the most prototypical relative to the term (As a point of evidence; he was not really even considered - except by me - in a recent PA thread concerning the "Big Six", for instance). So I re-iterate, if Canterbury bands are even on a par with Zappa as exemplars of Prog, then classical influence is not necessary to qualify as Prog.


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 18:15
Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

OK, this is my last post in reference to you, as I really am not interested in dialoging with you because I can sense the motivation behind what you're saying.


Is that code for "you're winning the debate so I'm going to back out now"?

Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

You can interpolate whatever you want into my words and I will admit that "bubble gum" does sound negative to most, but it's not meant to be by my sense of the term.  I will speak in any way I please because I think enough people with a mature perspective will understand what I mean.  That's not saying
their opinion is right, and yours is wrong. 


I didn't interpolate anything into your words.  I understood exactly what you meant.

Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:


The chief characteristics of the genre are that it is pop music contrived and marketed to appeal to pre-teens and teenagers, is produced in an assembly-line process, driven by producers, often using unknown singers and has an upbeat sound.  The songs typically have singalong choruses, seemingly childlike themes and a contrived innocence, occasionally combined with an undercurrent of sexual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre" rel="nofollow - double entendre .  Bubblegum songs are also defined as having a catchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody" rel="nofollow - melody , simple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_%28music%29" rel="nofollow - chords , simple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony" rel="nofollow - harmonies , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_music" rel="nofollow - dancy (but not necessarily danceable) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28music%29" rel="nofollow - beats , repetitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riff" rel="nofollow - riffs or " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_%28music%29" rel="nofollow - hooks ", use of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege" rel="nofollow - solfege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllables" rel="nofollow - syllables and a vocally-multiplied refrain. Bubblegum rarely has guitar solos, usually features the organ, and often use a single handclap or double handclap as prominent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion" rel="nofollow - percussion .

The song lyrics often concern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_love" rel="nofollow - romantic love , but many times are about just feeling good or being happy, with references to sunshine, loving one another, toys, colors, nonsense words, etc. They are also notable for their frequent reference to sugary food, including sugar, honey, butterscotch, jelly and marmalade.

That doesn't describe progressive rock at all.  And it's rather insulting to progressive rock musicians to insinuate that it does; whether you think "serious" music is superior to "bubblegum" music or not is irrelevant, it's still a falsehood and one that devalues the significance of prog (and, the way you say it, all other types of rock music too).  Probably you're using the word "bubblegum" in a broader sense than the article defines it but the implication of frivolousness is the same.  And if you think that all classical music was supposed to be serious, you are sore mistaken.

Originally posted by brainstormer brainstormer wrote:

The type of music that fits my description is most of the music on this site, which I've heard a lot of. Some of it I won't like, and it's still Prog Rock.  I suppose Genesis music is not heavily produced?  By lo-fi, think of a piano in a room.  I would say all the things you mentioned in your last sentence have more going into it than what the band sounds like just playing raw.  And even so, since it's popular to admit our love of garage band and other raw environments, my next statement might open up some more debate. The music itself is made into rock which is idiosyncratic and for people that are looking for real experimental music that is also beautiful, that gets old quickly when done in a "Prog" fashion.  Maybe insert some of the sites older conversations about what Prog is here, etc.


I have heard bands (and not just prog bands) play "raw."  If the band is good, they are still able to sound good without studio effects.  Anyone with even a cursory experience of live music can testify to this.  There are countless youtube videos, taken with people's video cameras, for crying out loud, of progressive rock bands that still sound good despite playing in a live environment and being recorded on a camera with bad sound quality.  As to your next statement, you're not even making any sense anymore.  Progressive rock is merely a musical genre.  It is as diverse as any other musical genre (at least proportionally to its lifespan).  To even talk about "doing experimental music in a 'Prog' fashion" is practically meaningless because countless experimental progressive rock bands have practically nothing in common besides complexity and rock instrumentation. 



-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 18:22
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:



-videos deleted to save space-

Classical music is alive and well.


This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular?
Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.


I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).


-------------
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 18:46
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Classical music is alive and well.


This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular?
Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.

 
Can modern music be "classical"?  Some day, who knows...
Classical is this:
http://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/concert/3425/honeck-mutter-dvo%C5%99%C3%A1k-lutos%C5%82awski" rel="nofollow - http://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/concert/3425/honeck-mutter-dvo%C5%99%C3%A1k-lutos%C5%82awski


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


"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 19:03
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:



-videos deleted to save space-

Classical music is alive and well.


This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular?
Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.


I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).
Yeah, i use the term in it's broader sense, which would include current examples that Ambient Hurricanes has given.
            I am on old dial up internet access, so can't watch vids on my own computer, but when i get to my friend's place, i will check your examples.


Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: December 29 2013 at 22:18
The 2nd defination which is the only correct one should include jazz as well. I reckon true prog is approximately the following:
 
25% rock(blues, rythm and blues)
25% folk(mainly english style)
25% classical
25% jazz
 
Well that's the best ingrediants for quality melody and playing. They produced melodies which are interesting and stay interesting for years progressing through the times. Barely any modern prog band can produce great melody because they have some real bad influences eg. hard rock, metal, punk, hip hop etc. So they'll have something like the following:
 
10% rock(blues, rythm and blues)
10% folk(mainly english style)
10% classical
10% jazz
60% crap influence
 
This music will never catch my ear. The melodies will not progress. It has small ingrediants of real prog and gets lumped under the prog name. They have to resort to the wrong definition of prog by trying to invent new styles of music to be noticed


-------------
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: King Crimson776
Date Posted: December 30 2013 at 01:24
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical.

BTW, US bands, such as Zappa's, were always referred to distinctly as "Art Rock" in my experience. I had never heard of British bands referred to with that term in the US, as a prior post asserted.

No one explained how they disprove anything. I don't see how anyone could not perceive the classical influence in Canterbury. The classical influence is the biggest reason they sound like they do instead of like Steely Dan, or heck, Naked City. Perhaps Gong is borderline much of the time, kind of in the same way that Floyd is. Somewhat related, Mahavishnu also has classical influence, although I wouldn't call them prog because they are more jazz than rock.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 30 2013 at 07:50
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical.
...
 
Which has been my point for some time. There are other influences that come up that has made it to "progressive" music, as much as they made it to anywhere else. I think that we're trying to dumb down the information and take the credit away from their proper creative folks, in some ways.
 
For example:
1. I would say that Canterbury was more influenced by jazz and free form thing that arose out of the "beat poetry" thing. And a lot of their work had some humor, though when we listen sometimes we don't think it's funny. But in the end, the main thing with Canterbury is the educational ability of many of these people. College at the very least, and the whole scene still thrives more on the college circuit than anything else, I bet!
 
2. Krautrock, had its first members in a very highly rated music school, whose famous dictum was "no western music concepts" and even had folks like Ravi Shankar for instructors as well as a veritable horde of well known names in classical music. And these folks were talking about creating things that had no "western music concepts". We constantly ignore that.
 
3.The individuality of a person, also tends to diffuse their inspirations. We don't sit here and say that Jimi was inspired by Bod Dylan, when we hear "All Along the Watchtower", and this is more of a factor of the visualization within an individual and how they interpret the words, than it is a bona fide concept or idea that came from a school or your head or mine. A lot of "progressive" music, specially in the early days, was HIGHLY personal and well defined, in their hopes, and terms, but we do not accept that third dimention in the music, and how it colored a few words.
 
4. Cultural mixes. We don't look at Alan Stivell, for example, as progressive, when in effect his mixes in rock, jazz and classical are down right insane and a very MODERN way of looking at his own history. Even in his own circles he is not considered a traditionalist, and has to pop a silly borring traditional album, so people think that he means it. It's one of the perfect examples, how a commercial aspect can literally destroy a person's personna. Like rock music can do keltic, or some bizarre notion along those lines, and it all has to be sanitized like that .... woman!
 
5. Film. The visual media has helped music a lot, and in fact, ended up bringing us things like MTV, so we would get a better idea (supposedly) of what the music was about. This, of course, became the new Playboy/Penthouse magazines for fans and sales.
 
6. World Events. The Moon thing on tv, and radio, and newspapers, got a lot of folks thinking about ideas and themes that had to do with things outside the earth and its solar system. Likewise one of the biggest influences in the late 60's was the anti-war sentiment that went against the VietNam and IRA thing, and other places. The "visibility" of these created a "new reality" that we still are hiding from and refuse to admit and accept!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 30 2013 at 08:08
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical.

BTW, US bands, such as Zappa's, were always referred to distinctly as "Art Rock" in my experience. I had never heard of British bands referred to with that term in the US, as a prior post asserted.

No one explained how they disprove anything. I don't see how anyone could not perceive the classical influence in Canterbury. The classical influence is the biggest reason they sound like they do instead of like Steely Dan, or heck, Naked City. Perhaps Gong is borderline much of the time, kind of in the same way that Floyd is. Somewhat related, Mahavishnu also has classical influence, although I wouldn't call them prog because they are more jazz than rock.
Interesting points! For a more detailed insight...observe closely (as I have), the chord voicings along with distinctive melody lines written for Zappa's Hot Rats and several other instrumental Zappa albums. Notice how clearly the style is more Canterbury than anything else which comes to mind. Very distant from the style of chord voicings and melody lines in the music of Steely Dan. On a day with free time, listen to Hot Rats and The Grand Wazoo....then play the first Hatfield and the North, Egg...the Polite Force, and some National Health. Not meant to be a judgement on Dave Stewart...only a curious observation.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 30 2013 at 08:18
In some cases the toccata is an improvised form in a variation set. In a case like this the improvisatory spirit is meant to come through. Also in sections of Classical music that are already embellished. Not being obscured by what happens around it because the basic rhythms are mildly displaced. In some Classical pieces the composer allows interpretive leeway. This exists in Prog where musicians provide subtle dynamic manipulation. That is a connection between Classical and Prog.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 30 2013 at 08:33
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

... For a more detailed insight...observe closely (as I have), the chord voicings along with distinctive melody lines written for Zappa's Hot Rats and several other instrumental Zappa albums. Notice how clearly the style is more Canterbury than anything else which comes to mind. Very distant from the style of chord voicings and melody lines in the music of Steely Dan. On a day with free time, listen to Hot Rats and The Grand Wazoo....then play the first Hatfield and the North, Egg...the Polite Force, and some National Health. Not meant to be a judgement on Dave Stewart...only a curious observation.
 
Agreed.
 
But it also tells you, that we heard a lot more music and different things, than we know, understand or have any idea what they might or might not be.
 
I don't believe that Frankl Zappa spent his time listening to anything and everything. I actually think, that he was more attuned to the individual sounds of an instrument, and how it could be used, than he was in listening to anyone else, most of which was the boring'est sh*t you ever known and he said that. But a Varese, was good copy and conversation, because no one ever heard of him, or had any idea what that music sounded like at all! We should do a perscentage here, and I would say 10 to 15% are familiar with it, but I doubt they (and even I) really understand the connections to anything else out there, including Frank Zappa!
 
Dave Stewart is no spring chicken, and is highly educated musically, and I doubt that he needed to hear Frank Zappa to do something, when he could put on Schoenberg and Rachmaninoff (sp.) and get more interesting ideas to put a guitar to! Think about that for a second! By comparison, Frank was more reacting to the local things than anything else and making fun of them. Sometimes, in those early days, I kinda thought it wasn't so much about the music as it was flicking his finger at anything and everything!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: December 30 2013 at 11:32
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:



-videos deleted to save space-

Classical music is alive and well.


This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular?
Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.


I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).


Maybe we should call it "prog classical". LOL


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: January 04 2014 at 08:50
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:


Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:


Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:



-videos deleted to save space-Classical music is alive and well.



This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular? Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.
I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to
a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).
Maybe we should call it "prog classical". LOL


Well. Specifics are important. so I guess that is what this thread is about.

-------------
If I get a break it is Prog Time.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 04 2014 at 11:33
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Interesting points! For a more detailed insight...observe closely (as I have), the chord voicings along with distinctive melody lines written for Zappa's Hot Rats and several other instrumental Zappa albums. Notice how clearly the style is more Canterbury than anything else which comes to mind. Very distant from the style of chord voicings and melody lines in the music of Steely Dan. On a day with free time, listen to Hot Rats and The Grand Wazoo....then play the first Hatfield and the North, Egg...the Polite Force, and some National Health. Not meant to be a judgement on Dave Stewart...only a curious observation.
 
I would have a look ... I think that FZ's stuff was around way before the Canterbury stuff became so well developed and famous.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: January 04 2014 at 20:25
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Interesting points! For a more detailed insight...observe closely (as I have), the chord voicings along with distinctive melody lines written for Zappa's Hot Rats and several other instrumental Zappa albums. Notice how clearly the style is more Canterbury than anything else which comes to mind. Very distant from the style of chord voicings and melody lines in the music of Steely Dan. On a day with free time, listen to Hot Rats and The Grand Wazoo....then play the first Hatfield and the North, Egg...the Polite Force, and some National Health. Not meant to be a judgement on Dave Stewart...only a curious observation.
 
I would have a look ... I think that FZ's stuff was around way before the Canterbury stuff became so well developed and famous.
Unsure if Zappa was influential to the development of Canterbury as it remains a observation which possibly..may have not been written about by a journalist. Therefore it doesn't fly with some folks until it has been circulated through publication. I could be wrong, but I've never read about it just noticed it. It also depends what style of jazz you've gone the distance with. Many Jazz musicians base their compositions and improvisation around a choice of how they personally desire to play. Some Jazz musicians play in a more Classical vain regarding their tone, choice of phrasing/expression and I believe Zappa and most Canterbury artists fall into that realm. It's a strange melodic style that creates visions in your mind.


Posted By: N-sz
Date Posted: January 05 2014 at 00:52
What I find weird is when certain bands/ artists are classified as progressive rock when they have little to no rock element in their music. Mike Oldfield's first four albums have little to no rock element in them, I would say. There are clear rock influences at times, but I would be much quicker to call his early works modern classical music than rock. I've only heard Univers Zero's first album, but I heard it described as "chamber rock". I would just call it contemporary chamber music with electric instruments.

Labels might not really matter, but I still think it's interesting that these bands (I'm guessing) were promoted toward a popular music/ rock music audience. I'm not actually sure how they were promoted, but I'm wondering how, for instance, Tangerine Dream was advertised back in the day. Does anyone happen to know? If they were sold in catalogs side by side with other Virgin rock bands, why exactly did they get lumped in with the rock audience as opposed to a classical audience? Or why not both (if they weren't)?

I don't know if this is too off topic, but what do other people think about this? 


-------------
https://blankspacerecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Blank Space Records


Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: January 05 2014 at 06:43
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

 
Unsure if Zappa was influential to the development of Canterbury

He was, very much so. Soft Machine were inspired by his Absolutely Free album when they made their second album. Softs' Vol. 2 was itself a huge influence on later Canterbury; I doubt bands like Hatfield and National Health would even exist without the influence of Vol. 2.


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


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 05 2014 at 10:52
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

 
Unsure if Zappa was influential to the development of Canterbury

He was, very much so. Soft Machine were inspired by his Absolutely Free album when they made their second album. Softs' Vol. 2 was itself a huge influence on later Canterbury; I doubt bands like Hatfield and National Health would even exist without the influence of Vol. 2.
 
Actually I will buy that. But remember that The Beatles, and specifically John Lennon had already got everyone's mind looking and thinking about Frank Zappa way back further than any of this stuff. I do think that the "Canterbury" thing had a very big string of "California" written all over it, that might have come from Frank Zappa, but in the end, it will have come from other writers and much further back, that helped put that whole scene on the map.
 
I actually think that the literature associated with "the beat poetry and writers" thing is as much of an important concept in developing "Canterbury" as Fran Zappa ever was. The thread of free form, and fun, was one of the biggest things in many of the "beat poets', even though, by the time you get to Ginsburg things appear to be more serious.
 
Frank Zappa, for the most part in his early days, was extremely "reactive" to the scene around him and made fun of things left and right, from commercials to songs, to the actual scene around him, and in this sense he is much less inspired by anything else, than what was around him. BUT, I can not say that Frank was not well read or studied, which he likely was to a point, but I don't think that as much of it influenced him. He certainly was not a part of the drug scene that was also around, and later, his house was the veritable drug rehab center for many artists and famous folks, to give you an idea of his character, or at least his wife's. But I doubt that someone like Mr. Further would have spent a minute or two with Frank or vice versa. Frank would have preferred meeting Varese, which we still do not know how it factors in Frank's music! 


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: January 05 2014 at 11:04
Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

 
Unsure if Zappa was influential to the development of Canterbury

He was, very much so. Soft Machine were inspired by his Absolutely Free album when they made their second album. Softs' Vol. 2 was itself a huge influence on later Canterbury; I doubt bands like Hatfield and National Health would even exist without the influence of Vol. 2.
There's no doubt that these artists were listening to each others music and were influenced by the various styles and the Soft Machine were one of the first ,if not the first, to play 'Canterbury' styled prog jazz /rock music, however we define that. And bands always/usually build on what came before so saying a band wouldn't exist is really not a fair statement. That's like saying no 'pop rock' would have ever existed with out the Beatles. 
 
Have any of the early Canterbury musicians ever said what their  influences were in print..?


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


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 05 2014 at 11:33
Originally posted by N-sz N-sz wrote:

Labels might not really matter, but I still think it's interesting that these bands (I'm guessing) were promoted toward a popular music/ rock music audience. I'm not actually sure how they were promoted, but I'm wondering how, for instance, Tangerine Dream was advertised back in the day. Does anyone happen to know? If they were sold in catalogs side by side with other Virgin rock bands, why exactly did they get lumped in with the rock audience as opposed to a classical audience? Or why not both (if they weren't)?


I think they along with similar artists from the same subculture were referred to as "Cosmic music" by Ohr, precisely they came at progressive and psychedelic music from a completely different angle than most of the UK/US groups that it didn't make sense to evaluate them the same way. I've seen some of the original advertisements for the first TD LPs in the booklets to the recent reissues.

Which reminds me, I've dug up a 1974 encyclopedia of rock music published in Denmark which defines "progressive rock" as referring to the more technically well-grounded and ambitious styles of rock with often experimental characters. The specific examples given are Frank Zappa, The Moody Blues and The Soft Machine. Doesn't make any reference to classical influence being an integral element, though.

However, it is interesting that Pink Floyd are specifically mentioned as psychedelic and not progressive.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: January 06 2014 at 09:57
Originally posted by N-sz N-sz wrote:

What I find weird is when certain bands/ artists are classified as progressive rock when they have little to no rock element in their music. Mike Oldfield's first four albums have little to no rock element in them, I would say. There are clear rock influences at times, but I would be much quicker to call his early works modern classical music than rock. I've only heard Univers Zero's first album, but I heard it described as "chamber rock". I would just call it contemporary chamber music with electric instruments.
 Not so. Well, not true to me because Oldfield does play a Rock style on guitar. He plays passages in Irish jigs/pieces that are technical , but he also playes the Pentatonic Blues scale quite often.
Labels might not really matter, but I still think it's interesting that these bands (I'm guessing) were promoted toward a popular music/ rock music audience. I'm not actually sure how they were promoted, but I'm wondering how, for instance, Tangerine Dream was advertised back in the day. Does anyone happen to know? If they were sold in catalogs side by side with other Virgin rock bands, why exactly did they get lumped in with the rock audience as opposed to a classical audience? Or why not both (if they weren't)?

I don't know if this is too off topic, but what do other people think about this? 
Tangerine Dream were promoted and I am unsure to what extent that promotion took on...but I recall Rock fans having an interest in the band's light show and those fans were reminded of the light show saw with Pink Floyd. Tangerine Dream were popular in Philadelphia when they were played on WXPN's after hours progressive radio show in the 70's and 80's. Nightcrawlers and a bunch of Philadelphia Electronic duo's were signed to low budget labels and stealing the sound of T.D. Tangerine Dream were a bit of a craze for a larger crowd because of the way they presented themselves as a band...the lightshow, Edgar Froese taking longer guitar solo's on Encore, distortion on the guitar, ....impressed people who were interested more...in just plain , simple..Rock music.


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: January 06 2014 at 10:13
Tangerine Dream were promoted and got plenty of record distribution through Jem Imports. Jem Imports was located on Kennedy Blvd. in South and North Plainfield N.J. They existed through the 70's and most of the 80's. A fellow named Marty ...from England use to sell import albums of prog and electronic music out of the back of his station wagon. He built his business from that point to full time distribution of progressive music across the U.S. He pushed Tangerine Dream's music across the U.S. helping the band to gain a following. Archie Patterson who was once associated with Greenworld on the west coast, promoted progressive rock and electronic music through his reviews and interviews with the artists. He also had a magazine titled Eurock. He had everything to do with a band like Tangerine Dream rising above the underground.


Posted By: Big Ears
Date Posted: January 06 2014 at 10:13
I don't recall any classical influences in the later progressive, as opposed to psychedelic, Man.


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: January 31 2014 at 23:47
Yes. In order for anything top progress it must draw upon ideas and the harmonic ideas in the various areas of classical music are vast. These get used in a variety of ways in rock,. Adaptions by Keith Emerson, orchestations such as the mellotron influence that created a soundscape back drop to the songs. These inspired extended works which had various developments that are akin to classical (gentle Giant, moody Blues).

Now there is a tendency for modern prog rock to eschew classical influences. If you want to hear some of the greatest ever harmonic developments (Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, Beethoven's 6th Symphony) then there you go.

The rock influence in classical has been less so as most rock is defined by the drum beat and the constraints of the constant meter. I found an example of classical that had me thinking that musically for the first two movements Deep Purple say, could have been capable of it, but the 3rd movement of Beethoven's Kreutzer Piano Sonata (9th) required more performance and technical capability than even Purple; it's quite something.

The things is, most music exists to express something that another form could not. Which is why Miles Davis and Coltrane had their propulsive forward thinking ever searching ideas. And Miles found himself in the rock world... 

Classical music is orchestral music. Violins exist to replace voices. The links between Stravinsky, UZ, Henry Cow and FZ are evident, baroque music and Tull, this odd unification progressed rock. Imagination took hold of rock for a while.

But in order for music to survive it has to fit in with it's audience. So prog rock has dispensed with classical (hence the way the Golden Era is identified) and how newer acts can connect with a new pop audience whose time and attentions are limited and varied. Plus rock and pop are youth music but anything classical is not - in culture terms.

So progressive rock is progressive music for rock music (as a genre). Oddly in pop culture terms the two worlds are apart and the snobbishness on both sides serves to alienate. Unless you're a bloody minded sort who does not give a flying fornication for this and prefers to enjoy whatever music. Like someone I know...


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: February 01 2014 at 04:05
Originally posted by N-sz N-sz wrote:

What I find weird is when certain bands/ artists are classified as progressive rock when they have little to no rock element in their music. Mike Oldfield's first four albums have little to no rock element in them, I would say. There are clear rock influences at times, but I would be much quicker to call his early works modern classical music than rock. I've only heard Univers Zero's first album, but I heard it described as "chamber rock". I would just call it contemporary chamber music with electric instruments.

Labels might not really matter, but I still think it's interesting that these bands (I'm guessing) were promoted toward a popular music/ rock music audience. I'm not actually sure how they were promoted, but I'm wondering how, for instance, Tangerine Dream was advertised back in the day. Does anyone happen to know? If they were sold in catalogs side by side with other Virgin rock bands, why exactly did they get lumped in with the rock audience as opposed to a classical audience? Or why not both (if they weren't)?

I don't know if this is too off topic, but what do other people think about this? 
I think it's because of the tendency to "classify" bands or composers of these categories into a Prog Rock subgenre. If this is well applied let's then separate Prog from Prog Rock and so create a new subgenre: "Prog". In my opinion, you don't see any other music genre with so much "subgenres" like Prog Rock.


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


"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 01 2014 at 04:28
There are not too many electric instruments on the first UZ album. Anyway progressive rock is not really rock and roll. Mike Oldfield uses rock in his (version of) classical music much the same way as Abba use rock in their pop music. And Mike covered Arrival, and Abba's Intermezzo Number 1 can give ELP  a run for their prog money. (My suspiciously sound knowledge of Abba is due to my sister being an Abba nut and she nad our mother disliking Intermezzo while I briefly interrupted my admiration of Heep's Sweet Freedom to check that out).

UZ use rock in their music. Not sure how the classical establishment view UZ. It should be on musical terms but we can be snobs just the same as the rest of us (sic). They are more classical composers using rock, a sort of flip side of the prog rock ideal of a rock band using classical ideas to arrange knew pieces.

Progressive rock is a means of getting musically somewhere rather than by sticking to roots oriented music. Prog rock should not really have roots type music in it; it's supposed to be a fusion of disparate elements to a cohesive whole. Sometimes this works. Wink 


Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: February 01 2014 at 09:56
Originally posted by uduwudu uduwudu wrote:

Yes. In order for anything top progress it must draw upon ideas and the harmonic ideas in the various areas of classical music are vast. These get used in a variety of ways in rock,. Adaptions by Keith Emerson, orchestations such as the mellotron influence that created a soundscape back drop to the songs. These inspired extended works which had various developments that are akin to classical (gentle Giant, moody Blues).

Now there is a tendency for modern prog rock to eschew classical influences. If you want to hear some of the greatest ever harmonic developments (Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, Beethoven's 6th Symphony) then there you go.

The rock influence in classical has been less so as most rock is defined by the drum beat and the constraints of the constant meter. I found an example of classical that had me thinking that musically for the first two movements Deep Purple say, could have been capable of it, but the 3rd movement of Beethoven's Kreutzer Piano Sonata (9th) required more performance and technical capability than even Purple; it's quite something.

The things is, most music exists to express something that another form could not. Which is why Miles Davis and Coltrane had their propulsive forward thinking ever searching ideas. And Miles found himself in the rock world... 

Classical music is orchestral music. Violins exist to replace voices. The links between Stravinsky, UZ, Henry Cow and FZ are evident, baroque music and Tull, this odd unification progressed rock. Imagination took hold of rock for a while.

But in order for music to survive it has to fit in with it's audience. So prog rock has dispensed with classical (hence the way the Golden Era is identified) and how newer acts can connect with a new pop audience whose time and attentions are limited and varied. Plus rock and pop are youth music but anything classical is not - in culture terms.

So progressive rock is progressive music for rock music (as a genre). Oddly in pop culture terms the two worlds are apart and the snobbishness on both sides serves to alienate. Unless you're a bloody minded sort who does not give a flying fornication for this and prefers to enjoy whatever music. Like someone I know...
It's indeed very nice to know there is someone here that actually cares about Classical Music and gives so much value to it, especially that from XIX's AND XVIII's. I remember quite well that in my childhood I used to see very much people listening to Classical Music, not only at home, and also watching Classical Ballet pieces. Nowadays is almost completely different...


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


"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 01 2014 at 10:14
It was and it wasn't as was jazz...

Now if you will excuse me I'm going to dance around some architecture....


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: February 01 2014 at 10:22
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

It was and it wasn't as was jazz...

Now if you will excuse me I'm going to dance around some architecture....
 
It's OK man... sometimes it's good to put some looseness on that...


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


"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 01 2014 at 15:48
Originally posted by Rick Robson Rick Robson wrote:

It's indeed very nice to know there is someone here that actually cares about Classical Music and gives so much value to it, especially that from XIX's AND XVIII's. I remember quite well that in my childhood I used to see very much people listening to Classical Music, not only at home, and also watching Classical Ballet pieces. Nowadays is almost completely different...
 
I think there are many folks here that listen to classical music. My big issue, is that not many of the folks that do, think that any of this rock music belongs, in the same sentence or discussion.
 
I believe that this is all the new music of the future, and it will be all electric and that the "orchestra" of yesterday will no longer exist as we know it. But the music composing is trying its best to ignore that modern music and rock and jazz, and instead trying to find something rather oblivious to what is out there.
 
I'm not sure that music will be the same EVER again, because of the advent of recording. Recording is showing us that there is just as much popular music, in rock or jazz or other idioms, that are far better written and performed than a lot of classical music in the past 50 to 60 years.
 
But you and I will not see the results of this as we will ahve been long gone by then. But I believe that music history is forever changed and will be better evaluated in about 50 years. Will this discussion be help[ful/important to it? I can't say, but can only hope that it will. But a lot of folks here, including admins do not think of this as anything other than pop music. I believe it has a lot more in the "classical" nature than it doesn't. But I respect their opinion and point of view.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: geekfreak
Date Posted: February 14 2014 at 07:49
the answer is YES!. most of the `60/`70`s bands add elements. of the classical masters within there music. even some of the neo prog bands.
also the band the tangent. check out there new album out.

-------------
It’s a mad mad world conspiracy theories on a. Vast scale about “COVID-19 and the Government” cover up..,


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: February 15 2014 at 17:19
It's essential to music in general.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: February 15 2014 at 17:35
^ Nice


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 16 2014 at 11:01
Originally posted by Rick Robson Rick Robson wrote:

[QUOTE=uduwudu]Yes. In order for anything top progress it must draw upon ideas and the harmonic ideas in the various areas of classical music are vast. These get used in a variety of ways in rock,. Adaptions by Keith Emerson, orchestations such as the mellotron influence that created a soundscape back drop to the songs. These inspired extended works which had various developments that are akin to classical (gentle Giant, moody Blues).
...
 
Rick, I think this was incorrectly mentioned as a quote by me. But I do think that what it said is right.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: February 16 2014 at 12:39
Something I can't believe that I haven't mentioned yet: The few people with an in-depth knowledge of classical music I've heard voice an opinion on the subject find Beefheart/Zappa-style "avantgarde rock" and the more ambitious black/death metal groups of the 1990s (e. g. Gorguts) to do much more interesting things with the compositional elements borrowed from classical music, or at least execute the fusion in a much less awkward manner, than is the case with the Genesis/KC type of prog rock where the classical influence is usually more obvious. (and it might also be revelant that Mark Prindle http://markprindle.com/yesa.htm" rel="nofollow - considers Yes the only big name progressive rock band to pull off the classical/rock fusion fluidly)

I know that anecdotal evidence does not count for much, and like I said my very rudimentary knowledge of music theory puts me in the dark here, but I still find the above worth reflecting on.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: February 16 2014 at 15:45
No some is more jazz influenced or folk or whatever. What I don't get is that there are some people who think if it is mostly classical and rock then it's prog rock but if it's jazz and rock then it's fusion. For one thing, it's all prog. You could call the classical and rock thing classical rock or symphonic and the jazz rock thing fusion but they are all subgenres of progressive music. 


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 16 2014 at 19:14
Well it's the origin of the influences upon rock that matter of course. If it's European harmony with a very straight rhythm that's a big influence on some prog rock. But it doesn't stop there.

When it's jazz, there are a lot of harmonic extensions (implied chords) -  that's the US jazz influence.

But one of the big differences is in the rhythm. With the solid rock back beat in jazz rock (e.g Stanley Clarke) then the rock influence dominates. Jazz drumming is about playing from the cymbals down leaving the groove to the bass (Ron Carter and Tony Williams with Miles Davis). The big changes in rock drumming came with Bruford and Palmers ulra complex rhythms. The big fusion album (the ITCOCK equivaleent) is probably Bitches Brew. The drumming that was jazz, the jazz harmonies and the rock influence which was a more amped up sound gave prog rock a whole new identity - the American influence.

The thing is, it may be that prog rock is a sub-genre of jazz and classical influences as well as The Beatles (C and W) / Stones (blues) / Who (soul) = generated rock - not the other way around. Jazz drumming on ITCOCK, Euro harmonies (but not 21st C. Schizoid Man which has everything) pretty much narrows the field making Prog rock a sub genre - not a meta one. From this came other ideas... bit like a Pete Fame family tree.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 19 2014 at 08:40
Originally posted by uduwudu uduwudu wrote:

Well it's the origin of the influences upon rock that matter of course. If it's European harmony with a very straight rhythm that's a big influence on some prog rock. But it doesn't stop there.

When it's jazz, there are a lot of harmonic extensions (implied chords) -  that's the US jazz influence.

But one of the big differences is in the rhythm.
...
 
And I think this is the stuff that will create the new music definitions and history for the 20th century and beyond, and cause "classical music" to change, like it has so many times before!
 
You can look at Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and Stravinsky, and there is no "rhythm", or drumming, for example, and all of a sudden we have pieces that are defined strictly on that basis (rock and jazz for sure) which is only a portion of the whole musical spectrum and likely the reason why so many folks do not consider rock/jazz as important music in the history of things.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Big Ears
Date Posted: February 19 2014 at 09:26
Aaron Copland uses layers of beats or rhythms, as on Bolero.


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: February 19 2014 at 09:26
I agree with the last few posts. From very early on Jade Warrior brought in African and Japanese influences. Hackett's Spectral Morning's employs Japanese style music and ragtime in addition to its Classical influence. Peter Gabriel employed all sorts of world music influence. The Jazz influence on Prog has already been correctly mentioned. Classical influence is neither necessary nor sufficient. Maybe it is to qualify as the sub-genre, Symphonic Prog, but I'm not sure about that even. I don't hear any classical influence in the Genesis' The Waiting Room, yet experimental and Prog it is. 21st Century Schizoid Man incorporated Jazz not Classical.

Also, Classical is a pretty broad brush. The Classical influence on Zappa is not the same as the Classical influence on Genesis which is not the same as...


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 19 2014 at 09:32
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

There's something I've become more and more confused about regarding the exact definition of "progressive rock" recently, in part because my own knowledge of music theory is very basic and I'm not sure exactly how to test the argument in practice.

I get the impression there's two contrasting definitions of the genre/movement. The first defines "progressive" as just thinking outside the box in terms of style and theme, progress here meaning moving the genre forwards and not really being a specific style. The second one has "progressive rock" refer to progress within a composition, as in abandoning the cyclical verse/chorus song structure of pop/rock tradition in favour of a classically inspired sonata format dominated by linear forwards progression. (I think this is the definition J. Derogatis uses in his book Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock) Under this definition bands like ELP, Genesis, King Crimson and Yes would be prog. However, groups like Hawkwind, Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd would at best have ten songs each that qualify as prog... instead being classified as "art rock" under this definition. (a categorization I'm still not sure exactly what means - when I first encountered it I saw it used as a synonym for progressive rock, but now I'm far from certain as you can see)

The plot thickens: Then there's the question of how much stuff like Captain Beefheart or much of Krautrock would count as prog under the second definition. Its classical influences come from very different sources (Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Varese etc.) and is more about deconstructing the building blocks or structural ideas behind music than constructing lengthy complex pieces of music.

Can anyone here clear things up for me? I'm curious to find out how the genre categorizations of "art rock" and "progressive rock" have evolved historically, in specific how much influence from classical music has been an essential part of the latter. Should mention that Derogatis' book uses the classical influence to draw the line between progressive rock and psychedelic rock instead, the latter I'm certainly fine with regarding as a "cultural movement" at least as much as a style of music.


There is much wisdom in this summary of what constitutes 'Prog' certainly but as the OP also observes, the adjectival distinction re progressive once more rears its ugly head. PA Member Dean has written very perceptively about this crucial difference on many occasions but we appear either unwilling or unable to take his caveats on-board.. I wholeheartedly agree that Hawkwind, Tull and Floyd, despite a lazy and ingrained set of associated ideas, have never really constituted Prog in my book (that's not to say their music is undermined by any such omission, but denied the credentials of Prog status by this site, many amongst us see this demarcation as a slight against their fave bands etc) Why do we continue to justify what we like with how it relates to Prog? We need to look at the bigger picture hereabouts e.g. for me, Television, Prefab Sprout, Wall of Voodoo, Magazine, Pere Ubu, the Fall, PIL (the list goes on) have demonstrably progressed rock music but would be horrified to be considered even remotely connected to Prog. Furthermore, if pressed I would have to say that I deem the latter's output more valuable and enduring than Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP etc. So called Kraut Rock has never been, is not and never will be Prog in my estimation (That's an observation NOT a criticism as I adore much Kraut) Similarly, the RIO/Avant critter is embraced because of shared values of innovation, non conformity and eschewal of traditional structures/form etc. Were it not for the textural context of rock instrumentation being deployed it's unlikely this stubbornly mooted genre would even create a dent in Prog's pillow.

With regards to the pivotal question: No, classical influence is not essential to Prog Rock but does constitute a common influential thread amongst its most celebrated practitioners


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


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: February 21 2014 at 01:20
^ New wave was pitiful compared to prog, in terms of innovation. It had a bigger influence on mainstream bands of today but is that something to be proud of (I guess that's what you mean by "enduring")? So either definition of "progressive" fits the classical-rock bands better than any other kind of rock music.

RIO/Avant at times sounds closer to modern classical than any kind of rock, but in the end it is a substantial fusion of classical and rock, and thus clearly very closely related to other prog.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 21 2014 at 01:51
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

^ New wave was pitiful compared to prog, in terms of innovation. It had a bigger influence on mainstream bands of today but is that something to be proud of (I guess that's what you mean by "enduring")? So either definition of "progressive" fits the classical-rock bands better than any other kind of rock music.

RIO/Avant at times sounds closer to modern classical than any kind of rock, but in the end it is a substantial fusion of classical and rock, and thus clearly very closely related to other prog.


I might agree with you on this up to a point re the regressive nature of Punk but I don't consider any of Television, Prefab Sprout, Wall of Voodoo, Magazine, Pere Ubu, the Fall, or PIL to be new wave. (I can't even think of a catch all description for these bands except maybe... 'post-punk?') Whether we like it or not, Prog Rock was just another type of popular music that thrived for a short while during the 70's. What is truly remarkable about its mainstream success was that unlike other popular musics it wasn't remotely accessible on account of its complexity, technological demands and being very difficult to play. Even a rudimentary guitarist can busk along to say, Television or the Fall in their bedroom and take inspiration from that - that's what I meant by enduring (replicating an Emerson or Wakeman portamento moog solo in 7/8 from bedsit land would be a tad harderWink)

I take on board your point about RIO/Avant but for me there's a lot of this type of music on PA that doesn't even have the rock constituent to my ears.


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


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 21 2014 at 08:14
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

There's something I've become more and more confused about regarding the exact definition of "progressive rock" recently, in part because my own knowledge of music theory is very basic and I'm not sure exactly how to test the argument in practice.

I get the impression there's two contrasting definitions of the genre/movement. The first defines "progressive" as just thinking outside the box in terms of style and theme, progress here meaning moving the genre forwards and not really being a specific style. The second one has "progressive rock" refer to progress within a composition, as in abandoning the cyclical verse/chorus song structure of pop/rock tradition in favour of a classically inspired sonata format dominated by linear forwards progression. (I think this is the definition J. Derogatis uses in his book Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock) Under this definition bands like ELP, Genesis, King Crimson and Yes would be prog. However, groups like Hawkwind, Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd would at best have ten songs each that qualify as prog... instead being classified as "art rock" under this definition. (a categorization I'm still not sure exactly what means - when I first encountered it I saw it used as a synonym for progressive rock, but now I'm far from certain as you can see)

The plot thickens: Then there's the question of how much stuff like Captain Beefheart or much of Krautrock would count as prog under the second definition. Its classical influences come from very different sources (Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Varese etc.) and is more about deconstructing the building blocks or structural ideas behind music than constructing lengthy complex pieces of music.

Can anyone here clear things up for me? I'm curious to find out how the genre categorizations of "art rock" and "progressive rock" have evolved historically, in specific how much influence from classical music has been an essential part of the latter. Should mention that Derogatis' book uses the classical influence to draw the line between progressive rock and psychedelic rock instead, the latter I'm certainly fine with regarding as a "cultural movement" at least as much as a style of music.


There is much wisdom in this summary of what constitutes 'Prog' certainly but as the OP also observes, the adjectival distinction re progressive once more rears its ugly head. PA Member Dean has written very perceptively about this crucial difference on many occasions but we appear either unwilling or unable to take his caveats on-board.. I wholeheartedly agree that Hawkwind, Tull and Floyd, despite a lazy and ingrained set of associated ideas, have never really constituted Prog in my book (that's not to say their music is undermined by any such omission, but denied the credentials of Prog status by this site, many amongst us see this demarcation as a slight against their fave bands etc) Why do we continue to justify what we like with how it relates to Prog? We need to look at the bigger picture hereabouts e.g. for me, Television, Prefab Sprout, Wall of Voodoo, Magazine, Pere Ubu, the Fall, PIL (the list goes on) have demonstrably progressed rock music but would be horrified to be considered even remotely connected to Prog. Furthermore, if pressed I would have to say that I deem the latter's output more valuable and enduring than Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP etc. So called Kraut Rock has never been, is not and never will be Prog in my estimation (That's an observation NOT a criticism as I adore much Kraut) Similarly, the RIO/Avant critter is embraced because of shared values of innovation, non conformity and eschewal of traditional structures/form etc. Were it not for the textural context of rock instrumentation being deployed it's unlikely this stubbornly mooted genre would even create a dent in Prog's pillow.

With regards to the pivotal question: No, classical influence is not essential to Prog Rock but does constitute a common influential thread amongst its most celebrated practitioners

Here is the best answer I've read:  "I don't know what prog is, but I know it when I hear it."

I am completely uninterested in making a niche music market even more limited by applying some draconian rule that allows for four English bands and two Italian bands to be entitled to reach the hallowed Olympus of  "progressive rock".  If that is the case, one might as well pack up the Prog Archives banner and call it a day. This place would be a ghost site in a week, or at least populated by a garrulous gaggle of geeks only willing to discuss the sonata form of "Suppers Ready" ad nauseam (and then get angry when a new poster suggests that the composition is simply 5 or 6 songs cobbled together to make it seem more pretentious than it is).

I am also uninterested in what a pseudo-scholar with a pseudonym ("Derogatis"? Really? Why not Ignis Fatuus? Wink) has to say on the matter. I suppose I am far more inclusive in my definition, or rather, I see innovation in prog far differently. I don't consider it "lazy" to consider Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd as prog bands. I would say that, on the contrary, they were perhaps even more progressive because they did not rely solely on the constraints of classical form to innovate rock. There is blues, jazz and folk themes as well that are integral in what makes prog progressive. 

I would also say that Jethro Tull had far more than "ten songs" that constitute their admittance in the exclusive society. I would suggest that nearly every time John Evan played keyboard or David Palmer orchestrated string arrangements (there are whole passages in Thick as a Brick and A Passion Play with classical references), Tull was in fact incorporating classical themes into rock on every album in the 70s; after all, it's not like every damn Genesis song was based on a sonata or rhapsody. To suggest such a thing is inane. Likewise, if you consider Pink Floyd, would you say a composition like "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" is not a progressive piece simply because the progression is from a blues base rather than classical? There is even a section with a funeral march thrown in there for good measure.

By that limiting argument, then The Moody Blues are far more deserving of prog status than either Yes or King Crimson. They sound more classical, ROFL!


-------------
...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: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 21 2014 at 08:56
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


Here is the best answer I've read:  "I don't know what prog is, but I know it when I hear it."



The same facile argument is used for pornography:

I'm don't have to define it, I just know it when I see it


(Mary Whitehouse has joined PA)LOL


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


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 21 2014 at 09:11
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


Here is the best answer I've read:  "I don't know what prog is, but I know it when I hear it."



The same facile argument is used for pornography:

I'm don't have to define it, I just know it when I see it


(Mary Whitehouse has joined PA)LOL
And isn't rock music, besides the arrogant and pretentious facades some pompous folk try to slather it with, merely an attempt by scrawny guys to get laid via playing guitar? Imagine poor Geddy Lee or Robert Fripp trying to get a date without a band. Forced celibacy is a terrible thing. Wink


-------------
...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...



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