Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Can Pop be Prog?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCan Pop be Prog?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
clarke2001 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 11 2006 at 10:24
"pop" and "prog" are not opposite, because there is no such thing as "opposite to prog" because prog can incorporate everything.
Percussion, sir!
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 19:01
Originally posted by andu andu wrote:

one comment - there might be one mainstream for singles, and another for albums... because hit lists show different things for these two. still, i don't think DSOTM would have became a sales record-breaker (this is not a metaphor, a vague notion) without being a "prevailing current or direction of activity or influence", too.
 
DSOTM is a "Rara Avis" they were popular because they were lucky, that's all, they have nothing in common with the top 1973 albums either, not even the other supposedly prog band as The Moody Blues released a Prog album that year because Seventh Sojourn was simply Rock, not Prog:
 
 

LP Icon Top Albums of 1973:

 
As you see, the top 1973 albums are mostly by Pop artists like Diana Ross, Elton John, Carly Simon, Al Green, Seals & Crofts, Stevie Wonder, a couple of Rock bands like Alice Cooper and Moody Blues, then  Pink Floyd and the rest POP.
 
That was the mainstream of 1973 in albums with Pink Floyd as an exception.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 18:39
I hate opinions. Pinch
Back to Top
andu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 17:10
thread resurrection kicks ass Big smile
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 17:08
The Pointless War of Opinion rages on... Ermm
Back to Top
andu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 17:02
I know you’re not trying to include them, but Air is a band that has a progressive (Adjective) approach to music but not a Progressive Rock (PROG) band.

it seems like you're trying to correct something i'm saying... but i say the exact same thing as you do. Geek
POP is what you say it is when you refer to it as "POP" (and not as what it literally means, "popular music"); i only wanted to keep the wider reference because i'm not happy with the way you use it. also mainstream can have other meanings, not necessarily one to support your theory (actually quite mine too as i had almost the same position on another thread, i even posted a top hit list from the 70s etc. LOL)
Look:
Quote

Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:

  • something that is ordinary or usual;
  • something that is familiar to the masses;
  • something that is available to the general public.

As such, the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media. The opposite of the mainstream are subcultures, countercultures, cult followings and underground cultures.

one comment - there might be one mainstream for singles, and another for albums... because hit lists show different things for these two. still, i don't think DSOTM would have became a sales record-breaker (this is not a metaphor, a vague notion) without being a "prevailing current or direction of activity or influence", too.


Back to Top
Poxx View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 03 2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 231 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:49
Check out the 2 first albums of Roxy Music, they are quite solid, and not too poppy. Really nice prog passages throughout.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:26
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

Ivan, the man in your avatar played occasionnally pop on most of his solo albums...
 
Yes, that's why he is in Prog Related, because some of his releases were close to Prog and some were not even Prog Related.
 
Please, an artist is not Prog "per se", an artist creates Prog music or not Prog Music, ELP, Genesis, Yes, Kansas, Tull, etc recorded a lot of non Prog albums.
 
But this doesn't deny the fact that they also created a lot of 100% Prog Rock albums and tracks.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
lucas View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 06 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:23
Ivan, the man in your avatar played occasionnally pop on most of his solo albums...
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 16:16

Andu wrote:

Quote that is exactly what i meant. by comparing "pop-art" to "pop music" i wanted to get your attention towards the original, wider sense of "pop"; which still IS a sociological notion and, as you also said, shouldn't be applied in other disciplines - except for the case you're having a sociological discussion (inspiration/producing/promotion/consuming) (and not when you're having an aesthetic discussion - style, sound). of course i can't make you think my way and your definition of what you call "pop-music" is correct and i accept it; but you use these notions in a very rigid, almost absurd, manner. for example: "It is not Prog if it's mainstream". think of Pink Floyd: are they prog or are they mainstream? i think they are both. you can't go more mainstream than that with good music.

 

But remember, the terms also evolve, POP is now a musical genre with it's own characteristics that you can find in any musical site and already mentioned.

 

The POP culture is something different to POP music TODAY.

 

of course i can't make you think my way and your definition of what you call "pop-music" is correct and i accept it; but you use these notions in a very rigid, almost absurd, manner. for example: "It is not Prog if it's mainstream". think of Pink Floyd: are they prog or are they mainstream? i think they are both. you can't go more mainstream than that with good music.

 

Pink Floyd is a Prog band who recorded a Prog album (DSOTM) but had the luck to be popular, but mainstream is a different thing:

Quote Main Entry: 1main·stream
Pronunciation: 'mAn-"strEm
Function: noun
: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

 

DSOTM didn't followed the normal music played oin the radios, Prog was more popular in the 70's but never was the prevaling music played in the radios, this was the mainstream of 1973 when Pink Floyd released DSOTM:

Quote

 

1. Tie A Yellow Ribbon 'Round The Ole Oak Tree, Tony Orlando and Dawn
2. Bad Bad Leroy Brown, Jim Croce
3. Killing Me Softly With His Song, Roberta Flack
4. Let's Get It On, Marvin Gaye
5. My Love, Paul McCartney and Wings
6. Why Me, Kris Kristofferson
7. Crocodile Rock, Elton John
8. Will It Go Round In Circles, Billy Preston
9. You're So Vain, Carly Simon
10. Touch Me In The Morning, Diana Ross
11. The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia, Vicki Lawrence
12. Playground In My Mind, Clint Holmes
13. Brother Louie, Stories
14. Delta Dawn, Helen Reddy
15. Me And Mrs. Jones, Billy Paul
16. Frankenstein, Edgar Winter Group
17. Drift Away, Dobie Gray
18. Little Willy, Sweet
19. You Are The Sunshine Of My Life, Stevie Wonder
20. Half Breed, Cher
21. That Lady, Isley Bros.
22. Pillow Talk, Sylvia
23. We're An American Band, Grand Funk Railroad
24. Right Place, Wrong Time, Dr. John
25. Wildflower, Skylark
26. Superstition, Stevie Wonder
27. Loves Me Like A Rock, Paul Simon
28. The Morning After, Maureen McGovern
29. Rocky Mountain High, John Denver
30. Stuck In The Middle With You, Stealers Wheel
31. Shambala, Three Dog Night
32. Love Train, O'Jays
33. I'm Gonna Love You Just A Little More, Barry White
34. Say, Has Anybody Seen My Sweet Gypsy Rose, Tony Orlando and Dawn
35. Keep On Truckin' (Pt. 1), Eddie Kendricks
36. Dancing In The Moonlight, King Harvest
37. Danny's Song, Anne Murray
38. Monster Mash, Bobby "Boris" Pickett and The Crypt Kickers
39. Natural High, Bloodstone
40. Diamond Girl, Seals and Crofts
41. Long Train Running, Doobie Brothers
42. Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth), George Harrison
43. If You Want Me To Stay, Sly and The Family Stone

 

This was the mainstream of 1973,  Pink Floyd (Who had nothing in common with this top 40 songs and artists)  had a popular album and that's all, but despite this fact  they were different to the main music current of music, so they were not a mainstream band, just a Prog band with luck.

 

The only Prog song remotely popular in 1973 was “Money” that reached N° 92.

 

BTW: Even a normally Prog oriented band may release a POP album, because Prog is the music, not the band.

 

People today say Prog was popular in the 70's and I always say that this is not true, they were more popular than ever but always POP music reached the charts.



also i didn't say AIR is a part of the progressive rock genre, i have a good understanding of these notions. what i said is that they make a music i'd define as "progressive electro-pop". it should be obvious that by using the notion of "progressive" in a place where it shouldn't normally be as a category, i was trying to forge a (new) definition and not to force an inclusion.

 

I know you’re not trying to include them, but Air is a band that has a progressive (Adjective) approach to music but not a Progressive Rock (PROG) band.
 
Iván
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 09 2006 at 16:23
            
Back to Top
andu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 13:57
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

One of the biggest mistakes is trying to apply other discipline terms to music


that is exactly what i meant. by comparing "pop-art" to "pop music" i wanted to get your attention towards the original, wider sense of "pop"; which still IS a sociological notion and, as you also said, shouldn't be applied in other disciplines - except for the case you're having a sociological discussion (inspiration/producing/promotion/consuming) (and not when you're having an aesthetic discussion - style, sound). of course i can't make you think my way and your definition of what you call "pop-music" is correct and i accept it; but you use these notions in a very rigid, almost absurd, manner. for example: "It is not Prog if it's mainstream". think of Pink Floyd: are they prog or are they mainstream? i think they are both. you can't go more mainstream than that with good music.

also i didn't say AIR is a part of the progressive rock genre, i have a good understanding of these notions. what i said is that they make a music i'd define as "progressive electro-pop". it should be obvious that by using the notion of "progressive" in a place where it shouldn't normally be as a category, i was trying to forge a (new) definition and not to force an inclusion. LOL
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 12:19
Originally posted by andu andu wrote:

well ivan, defining "pop" as a musical genre might be correct, but only inside a discussion concerned on music. still, if you think of the 50s-70s culture as a whole, you'll need to get back to the original sense of "pop", which is much wider and concerns many more aspects of modern culture. in fact, "pop" is a sociological notion (regarding the relation between the artistic object and production/consuming/promoting aspects), while "prog" is an aesthetic notion (a musical style). so, it is correct to involve them both because they don't collide. of course that doesn't mean that the latter definition of "pop" as a musical style is incorrect, but it still is only subsidiary; and myself for example i have to keep this in mind as i deal a lot with the visual arts - remember "popart"? now that was so "prog"!... LOL the "pop" word was put into it's name as for this artistic movement the sources of inspiration, producing procedures and target audience were new ones, and not because there was an aesthetic definition of "pop" painting vs. "prog" painting LOL
 
One of the biggest mistakes is trying to apply other discipline terms to music,
 
  1. The Classical Literature came much before atarted with Miguel de Cervantes or Shakespeare in the early 1600's
  2. The French Classicism in Painting started in the mis 1600's with Nicolas Poussin
  3. The Classical era in music started in 1750.

Also it's important to notice that the eras don't reach all the world at the same moment, while in Europe during the mid/late 1800's the music was in the Romantic era, in Russia the Nationalisst movcement was far more advanced being sometimes called Post Romantic or even some aggressive experts Modern Music, probably you will find a couple of places in which Mussorgsky is called a Mordern Musician.

The same happens with Contemporary Music, The Pop Art in painting reached their peak in the mid/late 60's with Andy Warhol, the term POP in music became a timeless genre, there was POP music oin the 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's and there will be POP music as a genre in the next decade if not more.
 
POP started as an approach to art but now it's a musical genre, Prog started as an adjective to qualify the approach of musicians to music and now it's a genre, things evolve in time.

coming back to the initial question, i want to mention the french band AIR, one of my favourite bands and definitely one of the best mainstream acts in the last decade! Clap i call their music "progressive electro-pop". what do you think?
 
It is not Prog if it's mainstream, AIR may have a progressive approach to music, in other words be ahead of the normal mainstream or even much more advanced, but it isn't part of the PROGRESSIVE ROCK GENRE, which is different.
 
Iván

            
Back to Top
andu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 09:16
well ivan, defining "pop" as a musical genre might be correct, but only inside a discussion concerned on music. still, if you think of the 50s-70s culture as a whole, you'll need to get back to the original sense of "pop", which is much wider and concerns many more aspects of modern culture. in fact, "pop" is a sociological notion (regarding the relation between the artistic object and production/consuming/promoting aspects), while "prog" is an aesthetic notion (a musical style). so, it is correct to involve them both because they don't collide. of course that doesn't mean that the latter definition of "pop" as a musical style is incorrect, but it still is only subsidiary; and myself for example i have to keep this in mind as i deal a lot with the visual arts - remember "popart"? now that was so "prog"!... LOL the "pop" word was put into it's name as for this artistic movement the sources of inspiration, producing procedures and target audience were new ones, and not because there was an aesthetic definition of "pop" painting vs. "prog" painting LOL

coming back to the initial question, i want to mention the french band AIR, one of my favourite bands and definitely one of the best mainstream acts in the last decade! Clap i call their music "progressive electro-pop". what do you think?
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 07:24
Thread resurrection sucks.
Back to Top
Everlasting View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: August 19 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 16 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2006 at 06:50
Ivan is right from beginning to end
Ad Astra
Back to Top
markosherrera View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 01 2006
Location: World
Status: Offline
Points: 3252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2006 at 22:05
SIMPLE MINDS,STILTSKIN
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 09 2006 at 19:09
SolariS wrote:
Quote I think we try to call progressive rock a genre, but it's not really. I mean how can "progressive" be a genre. A genre implies something static. It implies sameness. If you really want define a band by it's sameness, then it's not progressive by definition of the word right?
 
Well, IMO that's a common mistake PROGRESSIVE ROCK DOESN'T NEED TO PROGRESS.
 
Progressive Rock is a name (Just a name) for a genre with certain characteristics that was more advanced than the music of the late 60's early 70's when it was born, the name remains.
 
There's a classical era called Modern, it starts in 1900 (More or less) so how can music from 1900 be considered modern? Simple, because it's also a name. Modern Music will be still considered Modern in 100 years as Baroque or Romatic have remained because those are only names.
 
Bands like Anglagard in 1992 or Magenta in the 2000's are still Progressive Rock bands despite they are re-creating the style of the 70's because they write and perform music in certain paramethers.
 
Don't mistake progressive as an adjective that qualifies the approach of a band towards music with Progressive Rock as a genre.


Naturally there is some amount of sameness between bands, and that's why we can categorize them at all. I'm speaking very abstractly, but for example you have bands that obviously play something that sounds like metal. If a band that plays metal-like music does something completely new and original with the sound of metal, then it is "making progress" on the sound of metal. In my eyes, the band is worthy of being called a progressive metal band. But if two bands are doing something different in the same way, then one of them can't be progressive.
 
Well Pendragon in the 90's, Anglagard in the same decade, Magenta and Glass Hammer in the 2000's are doing music that has not advanced an inch since the 70's and are still Progressive Rock.
 
As a fact Anglagard refused to play in the 90's with instruments and tecnological advances not availlable in the 70's.


Does this "make a genre"? Well, not really, but it's a good way of characterizing music that people like you and I will enjoy. So in my opinion, a band in ANY subgenre of metal can be progressive. In fact, any band in any genre can be progressive if they are striving for originality. Do you agree?


Any band or artist can be progressive (as an adjective) if they are beyond the acceopted mainstream of their era, but that doesn't make them part of the Progressive Rock genre.
 
Iván



Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 09 2006 at 19:12
            
Back to Top
aapatsos View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 09 2006 at 18:26
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Well, it sounds as a musicall genre to me.
Back to Top
coffeeintheface View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 02 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 397 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 09 2006 at 16:44
Originally posted by SolariS SolariS wrote:

Originally posted by coffeeintheface coffeeintheface wrote:

Definately. A perfect example is Bohemian Rhapsody, which i consider to be a prog song even though some people would say they're not a 100% prog band.





HAHAHAHA. GREAT picture in your signature!




I also wanted to add this, that I posted in another thread, but I think the idea is still the same.





I think we try to call progressive rock a genre, but it's not really. I mean how can "progressive" be a genre. A genre implies something static. It implies sameness. If you really want define a band by it's sameness, then it's not progressive by definition of the word right?

Naturally there is some amount of sameness between bands, and that's why we can categorize them at all. I'm speaking very abstractly, but for example you have bands that obviously play something that sounds like metal. If a band that plays metal-like music does something completely new and original with the sound of metal, then it is "making progress" on the sound of metal. In my eyes, the band is worthy of being called a progressive metal band. But if two bands are doing something different in the same way, then one of them can't be progressive.

Does this "make a genre"? Well, not really, but it's a good way of characterizing music that people like you and I will enjoy. So in my opinion, a band in ANY subgenre of metal can be progressive. In fact, any band in any genre can be progressive if they are striving for originality. Do you agree?





 
I think that's the best point made so far. And thanks for the comment about my signature, haha. I made that in 10 minutes due to boredom. I made a facebook group about it as well, haha.
OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project)
nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas)
Back to Top
SolariS View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 891 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 09 2006 at 12:56
Originally posted by coffeeintheface coffeeintheface wrote:

Definately. A perfect example is Bohemian Rhapsody, which i consider to be a prog song even though some people would say they're not a 100% prog band.





HAHAHAHA. GREAT picture in your signature!




I also wanted to add this, that I posted in another thread, but I think the idea is still the same.





I think we try to call progressive rock a genre, but it's not really. I mean how can "progressive" be a genre. A genre implies something static. It implies sameness. If you really want define a band by it's sameness, then it's not progressive by definition of the word right?

Naturally there is some amount of sameness between bands, and that's why we can categorize them at all. I'm speaking very abstractly, but for example you have bands that obviously play something that sounds like metal. If a band that plays metal-like music does something completely new and original with the sound of metal, then it is "making progress" on the sound of metal. In my eyes, the band is worthy of being called a progressive metal band. But if two bands are doing something different in the same way, then one of them can't be progressive.

Does this "make a genre"? Well, not really, but it's a good way of characterizing music that people like you and I will enjoy. So in my opinion, a band in ANY subgenre of metal can be progressive. In fact, any band in any genre can be progressive if they are striving for originality. Do you agree?







Edited by SolariS - September 09 2006 at 14:25
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.178 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.