Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?

The 'progressive rock' is as simple as eggs is eggs...

topofsm wrote: joelossia wrote: Check out this: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Write_a_Progressive_Rock_Song Some things are hilarious but there's a bit in it somewhere about how it uses wierd 'tempos' and not Time Signatures!   Multiple tempi are fair game, do you think most 20 minute epics are the same tempo all the way through?   PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: Valdez wrote: Is it true that the last thing progressive rock fans want is for their music to actually be progressive? A true progger never even thinks about the word. They just naturally produce smart music   Hmm, like Tool and Mars Volta and Between the Buried and me, among other post 1989 artists?

Valdez wrote: Is it true that the last thing progressive rock fans want is for their music to actually be progressive?

Uncyclopedia's page on The Mars Volta is impressive.

^Hahaha, wow that is an awesome tutorial!

^ like I said, it's an important aspect. My definition is deliberately vague in describing those aspects, so the next step would be to list the most important ones:

- Musical Development
- Innovation, Experimentation, Avant-Garde
- A tendency to avoid and/or ignore mainstream/commerciality (that would be your definition)
- References to classical music and/or jazz
- More focus towards musical prowess (extended solos, parts that are "needlessly" - from a non-prog standpoint - difficult/complex)

That should cover most styles ... the problem is that many albums might satisfy one or even several of those aspects but we still wouldn't call them Prog. Queen are an obvious example. Looking at the music alone I would call some of their albums Prog (and Certif1ed agrees), but most others wouldn't ... I suppose this is because most people don't judge music by a list of criteria/aspects, but rather intuitively by comparing it to the memory they have of music they would call Prog.

^ I think that's an aspect that's present in most prog, but also in a variety of other styles of music. So while I think that the definition includes most prog, it also includes many non-prog albums, especially from the new alternative/independent genres.

^ It's really very simple. The key is that you first have to create an account and log in. Then all you have to do is to click the buttons/dropdown that are shown next to the album names. :-)

^ I guess in the end our positions are similar, and most of our "conflicts" are due to misunderstandings.

As far as seeing prog status as a "sliding scale" ... that's all I've ever been doing at Progfreak.com. Unfortunately many knowledgable PA members are not participating ...

Certif1ed wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Emerson's definition doesn't specify what level of development is needed to qualify. I read your lengthy list of examples ... and yes, if you lower the bar that much then the definition really includes most classic prog albums You were saying earlier that my definition raises the bar too high - which is it?  How, specifically, do my examples "lower the bar"? I chose the bands which I think represent Prog Rock simply by looking at the top 10 here, my own gut feeling, and Bill Bailey's top 10 Prog bands. I don't think that Gentle Giant, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, ELP, King Crimson and Gong - or even Camel and Hawkwind are "lowering the bar", do you? These are widely held to be Prog bands - and their music certainly fits what I think of as Prog.

If you interpret the term "development" from the standpoint of classical music then IMO that means raising the bar too high for most prog albums except for a small "elite". On the other hand you can of course lower the bar by not taking "development" too literal/formal. Then most prog bands fit the description, but also many albums that were not considered to be prog back then. You mentioned Space Rock yourself ... so is the typical space rock album prog or not, by Emerson's definition?

Certif1ed wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   It also includes Queen, Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s albums that aren't prog. *Newsflash*:  Some Queen albums are Prog.   Shocking, but true! We had several discussions on this topic a few years ago when they were added to the archives, I seem to remember. Listen to Queen II and tell me that's not a Prog album.

According to this website Queen aren't prog, and neither are Metallica. You're welcome to your point of view, but IMO it's historically incorrect to call them (or some of their albums) "Prog" without some further hints/explanations.

Certif1ed wrote: Emerson's definition is non-specific, to be sure, and, as I pointed out earlier, "genres" blur into each other a lot - you just can't be completely specific, especially when you put things into a nutshell, as he has so succinctly. However, I don't see how Emerson's principle, as I prefer to call it, describes Led Zeppelin! It's not really a definition, simply because of its non-specificity, it's more of a description of the approach and execution of Prog - a principle which describes the commonality that binds the huge range of different music that falls under the Prog umbrella together. If it implies that Led Zeppelin (or any other band) are related to Prog, then the more the merrier!

Well, maybe Prog can't easily be put in a nutshell.

I'm simply saying that while he has a point, there are other aspects that can make music fall under the prog umbrella. Enumerating these aspects is the hard part ... and it depends on whether you're an inclusionist/exclusionist, whether you embrace modern styles, avant-garde, jazz etc..

Let's keep in mind that "Prog Rock" is a term that was never properly defined in the first place ... people started using it for some bands, and then more and more bands that each person who used the term thought to be compatible.