How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?

Oh, brother.

progaardvark wrote: David_D wrote: David_D wrote: Whatever, I'd like you to be aware of that payback time has come.  As nobody fogs with me! DtR Well that is going to be an issue for me. I'm not very good at making my own weather systems. You'll have to make your own fog I'm afraid. I think I accidentally made a cold front with a gastric zephyr. It was embarrassing and I ended up hiding in the office supplies aisle at Walmart. Oh, and no worries about payback. My musings are entirely free. I might be in the laundry ring and look like my trash motors are made out of cosmology, but I usually have something to say about "fountain what the if the a in but of nose high the hey pants be the."

David_D wrote: But I'm curious about what "method acting" is, ...

Edited by David_D - May 19 2022 at 04:10

suitkees wrote: David_D wrote: Today, I'm much more concerned with that the understandig of what Prog is can be so including that Progressive Rock becomes difficult to distinguish from mainstream Rock - and that would be a pity for us, Prog lovers. " Out of curiosity, and just because I don't understand it, but can you explain how a genre label influences your music appreciation?

suitkees wrote: Jaketejas wrote: In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, I would suggest that ... generally speaking ... the songwriting came first and foremost, while the proggy-ness came second. A good evidence of that is the fact that many prog acts could be heard on mainstream radio, and the reason was because it was pleasing and motivating to listen to. You could even see & hear King Crimson on MTV. Everyone talks about the "heyday" of prog. Why is that? Why didn't it, generally speaking, remain strongly competitive with other forms of popular music into the 90s and beyond? If that's not a case for retro prog, then I don't know what else to say. Sometimes, I wonder that in some cases we might be sacrificing musicality for sheer acoustical experimentation all in the name of progressiveness. That makes me crave the songwriting of retro prog. In the end, I think that there should be enough room for both under the umbrella of prog. Enough said. I'm crawling back into my retro prog cave ... and yes, it has great acoustics! Don't get me wrong, I agree with everything you say here especially this: "In the end, I think that there should be enough room for both under the umbrella of prog". My own preferences are going more often to really innovative music (which I find a lot outside of prog), but that doesn't prevent me to enjoy some of nowadays prog too (why else would I be here on PA?).

... and I should mention that I do crawl out of my cave from time to time to listen to acoustical experimentation with microtonal music, 12 tone progressive metal, and extremely complicated time signatures. Much of that music is more recent. What I'm trying to say is this. There are some here among us who emphasize the PROG part but seemingly forget about the rock part. Rock music, after all, is by definition a form of POPULAR music. There are in fact many artists who emphasize the mainstream rock music aspect and, secondarily, blend in prog elements. I would be the last person to suggest that PROG rock artists be kicked out of PA because they are not popular enough. That would be absurd. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, it would be nice if the same consideration were given to prog ROCK artists, who do not place as much emphasis on the avant garde. Yet, I see that it is quite common here on PA to somehow view the prog ROCK folks as "lesser than", which I think is a bit absurd.

This is David all over, it's quite bizarre. I treat it as method acting and see how long he can stay in character. It certainly has a certain entertainment value.

In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, I would suggest that ... generally speaking ... the songwriting came first and foremost, while the proggy-ness came second. A good evidence of that is the fact that many prog acts could be heard on mainstream radio, and the reason was because it was pleasing and motivating to listen to. You could even see & hear King Crimson on MTV. Everyone talks about the "heyday" of prog. Why is that? Why didn't it, generally speaking, remain strongly competitive with other forms of popular music into the 90s and beyond? If that's not a case for retro prog, then I don't know what else to say. Sometimes, I wonder that in some cases we might be sacrificing musicality for sheer acoustical experimentation all in the name of progressiveness. That makes me crave the songwriting of retro prog. In the end, I think that there should be enough room for both under the umbrella of prog. Enough said. I'm crawling back into my retro prog cave ... and yes, it has great acoustics!

David_D wrote: suitkees wrote: .. I mean that the "progressiveness" of the music is not a defining characteristic anymore, at least not necessarily when some of us talk about "prog". Much of modern prog, in my opinion, is merely replicating what other prog bands have done before (so in that sense not progressive at all, but corresponding to what was progressive then...), and when the music is really "progressive" it is not necessarily responding to the characteristics of what was called "progressive rock" before. Suitkees' approach to music shows me by the way, together with similar approach I've seen of other persons, that this quoted here kind of ahistorical understanding/definition of "progressive rock" can tend to have some other negative aspects than those I've thought of so far. That is, it can be negative towards the kind of artistic approach which often has been called "retro prog".