Is Prog really Prog?

Junges wrote: You don't have to offer something original, new to be progressive. A pop, a metal album can be very original too, does that mean they are progressive?

Not necessarily, but it might. The prog metal and crossover categories are full of such examples.

Junges wrote:  The progressive albums that offer nothing new aren't progressive? My god, people could just type "progressive rock" in google instead of creating such topics.

Yes, that's what I said.

The Miracle wrote: It's true that music doesn't have to be progressive in attitude to qualify for the prog rock genre label.

Gerinski wrote: Take that someone would want to recover the musical forms of the medieval minstrels songs and combine them with the rock idiom. Would that be considered prog rock?

Yes it would.

^More like a sub-sub genre of prog folk then

So f**king stupid... prog is a broad style of music, not "the nature of having novel musical ideas".

Thats why its called "prog"

King Crimson776 wrote: rogerthat wrote: Gerinski wrote: Take that someone would want to recover the musical forms of the medieval minstrels songs and combine them with the rock idiom. Would that be considered prog rock?   Just throwing some wood into the fire for some fun  It would logically because it would be a new context within rock. We are getting confused between the ultimate product and the influences.  I reiterate that other than modernist composers, I don't know that any entire music scene came up without something new without leaning on some past influences. Actually, even Schoenberg claimed to be influenced by Bach, if I am not mistaken.  It is impossible to come up with new source material every time you make music but how you mix the source material is what it decides whether it is something fresh or derivative and treading beaten paths.  Every "mix of source material" is just another set of musical ideas just like the "source material" itself, and it's basically impossible at this point to compose something that isn't very much like something already composed. This is why I argue that people should not get caught up too much in how "original" something is, so long as it isn't blatant plagiarizing.

Presto Ballet only mixes prog rock material to make more prog rock, therefore not very original at all. It's like the Wolfmother of prog, if anything.  70s prog rock expanded the scope and reach of rock because even if they were drawing from existing source material, what they did had never been done before while Presto Ballet are simply walking a well trodden path.  For me, there is a world of difference between the two kinds of artists and I generally choose not to listen to the latter because it's boring and predictable.


Edited by rogerthat - December 10 2011 at 21:30

King Crimson776 wrote: Yeah, in the 70's there was still much ground to be covered, but I'm saying, no matter what modern band you point to, it is inherently impossible for it to be as original as much of the music back then. So, either you give up on modern music or give up on the "originality" bit. Radiohead doesn't really do anything new, for example (just minor, superficial variations and standard chord progressions)... but even if you could argue they are more novel than many bands... the conclusion to be taken from your viewpoint is that eventually everything will be totally unoriginal, "predictable" tripe. I dislike Presto Ballet as well, and yes they are boring and predictable (and honestly more derived from 80's hard rock than prog)... but here's the rub; not all "unoriginal" music has to be boring and predictable, or at least... I don't like to think of the implications behind believing the opposite, which you seem to support.

Once again, trying to infer originality from very fundamental aspects like harmony is challenging and gets more and more difficult as the volume of existing music increases.  But that is not really necessary because music is just an art form and effect is paramount in art.  Originality should evidence itself in the presentation and that can be achieved within unoriginal source material because there is no limit to how many new ways of presenting it an artist can think of.  So the reason I would find a Presto Ballet boring is pretty similar to why I find a lot of modern metal boring - the presentation itself is extremely derivative and lacks an original voice. Radiohead on the other have their own voice in whatever material they present and that is what I personally focus on to judge whether I should pay more attention to a given band. I personally don't even care much about some minor aspects of innovation in harmony or melody if the presentation is fundamentally derivative.  I would argue that rock from the beginning has been about synthesis and presentation but at a certain stage some artists and sections of the audience get so hung up on the rock sound that they don't want a fresh approach to presentation anymore. I do.

A lot of original music, in the sence of how it sounds comes up all the time.

frippism wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: Yeah, in the 70's there was still much ground to be covered, but I'm saying, no matter what modern band you point to, it is inherently impossible for it to be as original as much of the music back then. So, either you give up on modern music or give up on the "originality" bit. Radiohead doesn't really do anything new, for example (just minor, superficial variations and standard chord progressions)... but even if you could argue they are more novel than many bands... the conclusion to be taken from your viewpoint is that eventually everything will be totally unoriginal, "predictable" tripe. I dislike Presto Ballet as well, and yes they are boring and predictable (and honestly more derived from 80's hard rock than prog)... but here's the rub; not all "unoriginal" music has to be boring and predictable, or at least... I don't like to think of the implications behind believing the opposite, which you seem to support. Well there are only 12 notes; at least in Western music. So about your Radiohead claim- it doesn't take too long until all the possible combination of notes has been recorded and released in the same sequence and stuff. With that, an artist's sound is probably where the true originality comes forth.

How can something be "presented" differently if it doesn't *sound* different? And if it indeed sounds different, the difference can be measured in timbre/pitch/dynamic etc.

rogerthat wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: How can something be "presented" differently if it doesn't *sound* different? And if it indeed sounds different, the difference can be measured in timbre/pitch/dynamic etc. Sorry, but timbre/pitch/dynamics are far too broad to reveal the details and will most likely suggest that nothing is significantly different. It's also about what styles you blend, how you blend them, how you handle a particular mood or whether such a mood itself is not often handled in the said genre.  There is also structure and not just the opposites of pop and sonata. Even whether you start with the chorus instead of the verse, what kind of music is used to introduce the song, there are so very many aspects where a band can still show its originality without being significantly original melodically or harmonically.  So when I say unoriginal, I only mean a band which does not show the capability to even approach the same genre differently in any light and is content to borrow well established cliches.  I do not expect rock/pop artists of the present day to INVENT; that would be unrealistic to say the least.