Is Prog really Prog?

harmonium.ro wrote: I'll only partly agree with rog. I also sepparate progressive rock from progressive metal because the progressive ideas are implemented upon different "grounds" (rock and metal), hence different results. BUT, I find the progressive ideas to be the same in prog rock and prog metal. The flashy virtuosism and time sig experimentation can also be find in classic prog rock. For example, I've always thought, when hearing Return To Forever with Di Meola that if they used more distortion the result would sound just like Dream Theater (instrumentally, of course; thankfully there was no La Brie in RTF) or,m going firther, like Blotted Science or oher extreme technical metal bands. Also, the typical epic songwriting of classic prog (Supper's Ready, Echoes) can be found in progressive metal, one of my favourites examples being Agalloch. No wonder that the favourite music of Agalloch's bandleader is RPI. When evaluating, one must look for the progressive ideas regardless of what is the sound inside which they are employed, i.e. rock or metal.

Good post Alex. I think I'm starting to get a handle on some of this at long last. Do the 'progressive ideas' you mention, irrespective of what genre they are employed in, change that much from those that were considered innovative in classic Prog?

As far as I've listened, there's been nothing new since the the classic generation of the 70s (in what "progressive" musical ideas are concerned), and I assume it could be argued that the musical ideas of the 70s generation were already done by the previous classical / avantgarde / jazz musicians inside their own context. 

I don't think that there's been actual change since the 70s, to say that the current bands that are being truly progressive not just "prog" have come up with their own ideas. Rather, there's been a shift, and ideas coming from what was the periphery in the 70s movement are now taking precedence. Most of the contemporary bands I follow are based in ideas from, say, Can, Faust, Neu!, Univers Zero or Captain Beefheart, instead of following the core ideas of the 70s (beautiful rich sounds, epic compositions, instrumental interplay, etc. - Yes, Genesis, etc.) which are not providing a basis for innovation anymore at the current moment (IMO at least).



And coming back to Gerard's post, IMO the end result in the contemporary progressive scene does often sound nothing like classic prog, the musical ideas are usually the same just mixed in new ways and applied on sonic gounds and styles that weren't available before (hence the difference in sound but not in essence).


Edited by harmonium.ro - December 03 2011 at 16:13

ExittheLemming wrote:   Well....'original song writing and experimentalism' can be found in thousands of artists that ain't even close to Prog. e.g. the Pixies, Tom Waits, Dylan, Wall of Voodoo, Scott Walker (the list goes on) I guess I'm just wondering aloud if the 'progressive ideas' we identified from early 70's classic Prog can be completely absent from a contemporary artist's music yet still be considered for admission to PA under the current genre definitions?

I've said this before but I will say it again, to those who describe the spirit of prog as "those musicians who want to progress beyond the boundaries of the existing music and discover new uncharted territories".

Edited by Gerinski - December 04 2011 at 03:04

^ ^ (Gerinski) some very interesting and original thinking going on thereabouts. I can hear the classical past in much Prog e.g. the many adaptations of historical symphonic works from as far back as e.g. Bach, Vivaldi and Mussorgsky right up to circa Bartok and Stravinsky and as you say, exploiting forms, techniques and structures traditionally only found in large scale orchestral settings etc. I notice too the jazz elements but think these less pronounced and not a common characteristic e.g. there is plenty in Crimson and Zappa, some in ELP, Gentle Giant and Yes but none whatsoever in Floyd, VDGG and Genesis (or even Tull? - not a band I've heard a great deal of I confess) For me many Prog musicians mistake the act of improvising itself as being tantamount to Jazz, which it's clearly not.
I would also concede that a description such as those musicians who want to progress beyond the boundaries of the existing music and discover new uncharted territories is probably more indicative of the avant garde than anything else.
It might be worth pointing out that Prog musicians also conspired to inflate, embellish and bend those very basic rock elements you describe as hitherto 'restricting' into genuinely innovative devices. OK a riff that resolves itself over 8 bars instead of 1 or 2 is still just a riff, but such was unprecedented in the era of the beat combos.



Edited by ExittheLemming - December 04 2011 at 03:23

rogerthat wrote: This essentially sounds like expansion rather than regression. Not invention, yes, not much archetypal prog invented anything anyway.  But they were expanding the norms of what was considered rock by infusing the academic approach of classical music and/or jazz.

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: BUT, I find the progressive ideas to be the same in prog rock and prog metal. The flashy virtuosism and time sig experimentation can also be find in classic prog rock. For example, I've always thought, when hearing Return To Forever with Di Meola that if they used more distortion the result would sound just like Dream Theater (instrumentally, of course; thankfully there was no La Brie in RTF) or, going further, like Blotted Science or oher extreme technical metal bands. Also, the typical epic songwriting of classic prog (Supper's Ready, Echoes) can be found in progressive metal, one of my favourites examples being Agalloch. No wonder that the favourite music of Agalloch's bandleader is RPI.  That is quite true but my argument to that is RTF and Di Meola is jazz rock really and at the outer fringe of the 70s prog scene, if at all it can be considered a part of that.  That is more or less my view, really...you can find a connection with Rush and some jazz rock but not the quintessential 70s prog scene and all these bands are a bit outside that, in my view.  By quintessential, I don't mean just symph prog but KC, GG, Magma, Canterbury, etc.  In all these bands, progressive compositional technique is applied and technical virtuosity is an outcome of such exploration (because as you try to push the boundaries of rock, you are bound to venture into odd time sigs and such).  RTF especially is not compositionally very remarkable and rather typical of improvisational jazz rock music and solos of considerable lengths as well as duels are accommodated especially to showcase the prowess of the musicians. By this token, not only prog metal, but some metal shred like Joe Satriani, Shawn Lane, Guthrie Govan is definitely related to RTF-vein of jazz rock.   But I am not sure that therefore they are necessarily related to 70s prog as a whole.

Personally I regard all jazz-rock/fusion as integral to the core of the prog cannon, but from my experience with PA and other online places / mags etc. the rockier side of fusion is in the core of the cannon for the general prog public too (stuff like M.O., Brand X, Colosseum and many others), while jazz side of j-r/f (Miles, Herbie, WR) is not considered in the core of the cannon but accepted as a more peripheral side of the prog sphere.  RTF fit in both areas, stuff like the debut is definitely on the fringe side of the cannon but the stuff with guitar is cannonical from what I gather. [BTW from my experience on PA there is considerably more disagreement about Rush being integral to the prog cannon core compared to the rockier side of fusion.]

I didn't develop on this, but given the direction of the conversation I'd like to mention that the improv/virtuosism style of fusion that was employed in prog metal was employed inside a certain song-oriented context that was absent from the jazz context. (This awkward mix of flashy sections stuffed between AOR-ish refrains is also the reason why I could never get into classic prog-metal btw.) That's why IMO prog metal is maybe closer to the prog cannon than the loose improvisational fusion is.

And regarding your last sentence there which I found very interesting, IMO prog (and even the prog cannon) is a very diverse musical universe and I'm pefectly fine with having plenty of fully prog bands that aren't related to 70s prog as a whole simply because it's impossible for a band to be related to prog as a whole. From the top of my head King Crimson is the only band that I find relevant for prog as a whole, but with the caveat that it could be successfully argued that KC was in fact several different bands.

[Also, almost forgot to say, but flashy bombastic virtuosism can also be found in classic symphonic prog not only in fusion, think of ELP, Collegium Musicum and other such.]

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: When evaluating, one must look for the progressive ideas regardless of what is the sound inside which they are employed, i.e. rock or metal. Well, it goes beyond the sound.  Once remaining within metal boundaries becomes an imperative, there is less scope to accommodate diverse influences. I am not saying metal bands don't attempt to do so but it is rarely of the level seen in the best prog rock.  That however is not such an important aspect to me because I would also argue Marillion, for example, are stylistically much more limited than KC.   I am looking for the progressive compositional technique and I don't find much of it in at least the more popular end of prog metal. It takes more after Rush, Led Zeppelin and Rainbow (and combines it with the virtuosity of 70s jazz fusion, as you said)....coming up with multi-suite pastiches but not necessarily very individualistic in the way they approach structure.  KC or Genesis could turn structure inside out which is what enabled them to come up with a way of presenting music that appeared their very own.  Prog metal bands at best piece together epics that take after Scheherazade but rarely show a progressive approach to structure.  Speaking of which, Renaissance are again only fleetingly prog in my reading but they are one of the bands from the 70s who got widely accepted as prog. And I must emphasise again that in my view, it is enough if the music is progressive in some way and reasonably related to rock to call it prog rock. But as far as relation to 70s prog rock goes, no, I don't see much of it. It is connected more to that 70s music which is only tenuously related to 70s prog rock and in totality is more or less a clean break from the past.  To be clear, I am referring to prog metal here. I have already said I don't find that much of a difference with most other new prog but prog metal is a clean break from 70s prog.

I'll agree that most of the progressive metal I heard isn't outstanding on the progressive side, but when it is outstanding, it is well worth the research made to find it. To be fair to progressive metal though, it's hard to be progressive like Yes and Genesis were, inside a metal context, simply because it limits your sonic range a lot. How much dynamic from subtle and gentle to explosive (like in Supper's Ready or And You And I) can you have in a metal context? Not much. Some bands manage it, though, but they usually come from outside of the range of popular bands given by the classic prog-metal movement and more from the avant-metal and extreme metal area, which are more obscure. And again to be fair to the classic prog-metal bands, while they might not be outstanding in the progressive songwriting respect, at least they got their musical ideas from the core of the prog cannon: interplay, dense, rich sound, virtuosism, which provides them with a certain strong popularity and following between proggers, much more than the following that the more progressive but more eccentric metal bands that I was alluding to above ever got. [Edit: and more popularity and following than even certain 70s stuff like krautrock, avant-prog, psych prog, etc.]


Edited by harmonium.ro - December 04 2011 at 05:24

harmonium.ro wrote: Personally I regard all jazz-rock/fusion as integral to the core of the prog cannon, but from my experience with PA and other online places / mags etc. the rockier side of fusion is in the core of the cannon for the general prog public too (stuff like M.O., Brand X, Colosseum and many others), while jazz side of j-r/f (Miles, Herbie, WR) is not considered in the core of the cannon but accepted as a more peripheral side of the prog sphere.  RTF fit in both areas, stuff like the debut is definitely on the fringe side of the cannon but the stuff with guitar is cannonical from what I gather. [BTW from my experience on PA there is considerably more disagreement about Rush being integral to the prog cannon core compared to the rockier side of fusion.]

In both cases, I don't see a strong connection.  Is it progressive in a general sense? Yes. But not very strongly related to prog rock, imo.  I think the reason the rock side of fusion is accepted is a lot of Canterbury bands crossed over into fusion. Ok, but they were then doing something different, just as Genesis simplified gradually through the four man and ATTWT era and morphed eventually into pop.  The difference, of course, is fusion is still a kind of academic, technical music and it is much easier to accept that as prog rock (it is at least prog MUSIC  anyway). But I do consider fusion as something different from what prog rock bands were doing. 

harmonium.ro wrote: I didn't develop on this, but given the direction of the conversation I'd like to mention that the improv/virtuosism style of fusion that was employed in prog metal was employed inside a certain song-oriented context that was absent from the jazz context. (This awkward mix of flashy sections stuffed between AOR-ish refrains is also the reason why I could never get into classic prog-metal btw.) That's why IMO prog metal is maybe closer to the prog cannon than the loose improvisational fusion is.

I'd agree with this in theory but in practice, prog metal bands don't really expound on themes all that much either.  All they seem to do is connect the dots. I don't really find that very different from what Sabbath or LZ were doing (e.g. The Writ). The difference is prog metal bands also get technical at the same time, but that is just a technicality imo.  To re-emphasise, I do consider Sabbath and LZ progressive in a certain sense and it is each one's prerogative if they want to draw a line between Sabbath and prog metal and project the latter as more progressive, something which I never  do.

harmonium.ro wrote: And regarding your last sentence there which I found very interesting, IMO prog (and even the prog cannon) is a very diverse musical universe and I'm pefectly fine with having plenty of fully prog bands that aren't related to 70s prog as a whole simply because it's impossible for a band to be related to prog as a whole. From the top of my head King Crimson is the only band that I find relevant for prog as a whole, but with the caveat that it could be successfully argued that KC was in fact several different bands.

What you mean here is only KC were diverse enough to straddle a wide range of styles such that they were relevant in every era of prog. Agreed. But I am more concerned with the broad approach of the bands. In the 70s, I do find a broad similarity of approach in that the music investigates and expounds on themes and such exploration is holistic, i.e, concerns all aspects of the music.  Structure, dynamism, timbre are all tapped and turned inside out in the process.  I only find fleeting evidence of this approach in a lot of prog metal that I have head. Learning to Live for instance is organized around different sections but it is not necessarily an exposition. I'd argue that leaving aside Petrucci's hot licks, it is not any more sophisticated than Rime of the Ancient Mariner or Seventh Son of a Seventh Son. Which makes complete sense to me because it IS metal music and there is no reason for it to be any other way.

harmonium.ro wrote: I'll agree that most of the progressive metal I heard isn't outstanding on the progressive side, but when it is outstanding, it is well worth the research made to find it. To be fair to progressive metal though, it's hard to be progressive like Yes and Genesis were, inside a metal context, simply because it limits your sonic range a lot. How much dynamic from subtle and gentle to explosive (like in Supper's Ready or And You And I) can you have in a metal context? Not much. Some bands manage it, though, but they usually come from outside of the range of popular bands given by the classic prog-metal movement and more from the avant-metal and extreme metal area, which are more obscure. And again to be fair to the classic prog-metal bands, while they might not be outstanding in the progressive songwriting respect, at least they got their musical ideas from the core of the prog cannon: interplay, dense, rich sound, virtuosism, which provides them with a certain strong popularity and following between proggers, much more than the following that the more progressive but more eccentric metal bands that I was alluding to above ever got.

I agree with most of this but this only tallies with my own observation earlier...that prog metal is a term to be understood in the context of metal and not prog rock. It doesn't necessarily mean progressive music, it just means proggy metal, nothing more, nothing less.  If you have to embrace the width of a great classic prog rock band, you have to let go of Mr.Crunch at some point, which most prog metal bands would never do. Because, whether progressive or not, their identity flows from their being metal, just like any other metal band.  They are making metal music first and foremost.  I don't really have any problem with that,. I loved The Hunter for instance while, other than Grace From Drowning and Scarcity of Miracles, I could hardly be bothered to even listen to the work of any prog rock band that's been around for a long time (including a certain one which made a 'comeback' with a different singer).  But, again....relation?  I don't see a strong one. It is altogether different music.

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Personally I regard all jazz-rock/fusion as integral to the core of the prog cannon, but from my experience with PA and other online places / mags etc. the rockier side of fusion is in the core of the cannon for the general prog public too (stuff like M.O., Brand X, Colosseum and many others), while jazz side of j-r/f (Miles, Herbie, WR) is not considered in the core of the cannon but accepted as a more peripheral side of the prog sphere.  RTF fit in both areas, stuff like the debut is definitely on the fringe side of the cannon but the stuff with guitar is cannonical from what I gather. [BTW from my experience on PA there is considerably more disagreement about Rush being integral to the prog cannon core compared to the rockier side of fusion.] In both cases, I don't see a strong connection.  Is it progressive in a general sense? Yes. But not very strongly related to prog rock, imo.  I think the reason the rock side of fusion is accepted is a lot of Canterbury bands crossed over into fusion. Ok, but they were then doing something different, just as Genesis simplified gradually through the four man and ATTWT era and morphed eventually into pop.  The difference, of course, is fusion is still a kind of academic, technical music and it is much easier to accept that as prog rock (it is at least prog MUSIC  anyway). But I do consider fusion as something different from what prog rock bands were doing.

Must be a perception issue, I've always perceived the rockier fusion as fundamental prog based on the interaction with regular proggers that I have on this forum and others that I am part of. I don't think it's that different either, there's plenty of fusion/fusion-like music in ELP, KC, Magma, Yes, etc. Even for Genesis, if you cut the vocal sections from The Cinema Show, what remains is Brand X.

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: I didn't develop on this, but given the direction of the conversation I'd like to mention that the improv/virtuosism style of fusion that was employed in prog metal was employed inside a certain song-oriented context that was absent from the jazz context. (This awkward mix of flashy sections stuffed between AOR-ish refrains is also the reason why I could never get into classic prog-metal btw.) That's why IMO prog metal is maybe closer to the prog cannon than the loose improvisational fusion is. I'd agree with this in theory but in practice, prog metal bands don't really expound on themes all that much either.  All they seem to do is connect the dots. I don't really find that very different from what Sabbath or LZ were doing (e.g. The Writ). The difference is prog metal bands also get technical at the same time, but that is just a technicality imo.  To re-emphasise, I do consider Sabbath and LZ progressive in a certain sense and it is each one's prerogative if they want to draw a line between Sabbath and prog metal and project the latter as more progressive, something which I never  do.

I'll strongly disagree with this, I could never see Black Sabbath anywhere near the progness of classic prog-metal. Totally apart stuff for me. But here I have to say that my experience with prog-metal is limited (I'm more of a fan of avant-metal, black & death, post metal, etc.).

Here's one of my favourites prog-metal bands:



If this isn't prog 100%, then I don't know what prog is. The only thing is that most prog metal bands I've heard sounded to me at least too lazy to try and reach this level of progness.

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: And regarding your last sentence there which I found very interesting, IMO prog (and even the prog cannon) is a very diverse musical universe and I'm pefectly fine with having plenty of fully prog bands that aren't related to 70s prog as a whole simply because it's impossible for a band to be related to prog as a whole. From the top of my head King Crimson is the only band that I find relevant for prog as a whole, but with the caveat that it could be successfully argued that KC was in fact several different bands. What you mean here is only KC were diverse enough to straddle a wide range of styles such that they were relevant in every era of prog. Agreed. But I am more concerned with the broad approach of the bands. In the 70s, I do find a broad similarity of approach in that the music investigates and expounds on themes and such exploration is holistic, i.e, concerns all aspects of the music.  Structure, dynamism, timbre are all tapped and turned inside out in the process.  I only find fleeting evidence of this approach in a lot of prog metal that I have head. Learning to Live for instance is organized around different sections but it is not necessarily an exposition. I'd argue that leaving aside Petrucci's hot licks, it is not any more sophisticated than Rime of the Ancient Mariner or Seventh Son of a Seventh Son. Which makes complete sense to me because it IS metal music and there is no reason for it to be any other way.

I see that as normal. Back in the 70s, the classic prog bands had a general rock background; however, since then there have been four decades of rock music, in which many new ideas, sounds and rock paradigms have appeared, multiplying the scene in numerous subscenes. A lot of bands now emerge from particular paradigms such as (in cronological order) AOR, metal, punk, hardcore, alternative, etc., which will always "inform" their way of making music to a certain extent, and when they'll apply progressive ideas to their stuff, it's still going to "limit" them in a way. But, there certainly are a number of bands with a holistic approach even now with all this fragmentation: Porcupine Tree, Opeth, Radiohead, The Mars Volta (to a certain extent)... Actually, if you take PT for example and add SW's Insurgentes album, there more of a broad approach concerning all aspects of music than in most classic 70s prog bands (it's true that not all of their stuff is prog, but still). Coming back though, I'll agree that prog-metal is nowhere near this, as it's a genre most informed and limited by the paradigm it comes from (metal). But the fact that much of prog-metal lies at the bottom of the pyramid of progness shouldn't detract that it does belong to it.

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: I'll agree that most of the progressive metal I heard isn't outstanding on the progressive side, but when it is outstanding, it is well worth the research made to find it. To be fair to progressive metal though, it's hard to be progressive like Yes and Genesis were, inside a metal context, simply because it limits your sonic range a lot. How much dynamic from subtle and gentle to explosive (like in Supper's Ready or And You And I) can you have in a metal context? Not much. Some bands manage it, though, but they usually come from outside of the range of popular bands given by the classic prog-metal movement and more from the avant-metal and extreme metal area, which are more obscure. And again to be fair to the classic prog-metal bands, while they might not be outstanding in the progressive songwriting respect, at least they got their musical ideas from the core of the prog cannon: interplay, dense, rich sound, virtuosism, which provides them with a certain strong popularity and following between proggers, much more than the following that the more progressive but more eccentric metal bands that I was alluding to above ever got. I agree with most of this but this only tallies with my own observation earlier...that prog metal is a term to be understood in the context of metal and not prog rock. It doesn't necessarily mean progressive music, it just means proggy metal, nothing more, nothing less.  If you have to embrace the width of a great classic prog rock band, you have to let go of Mr.Crunch at some point, which most prog metal bands would never do. Because, whether progressive or not, their identity flows from their being metal, just like any other metal band.  They are making metal music first and foremost.  I don't really have any problem with that,. I loved The Hunter for instance while, other than Grace From Drowning and Scarcity of Miracles, I could hardly be bothered to even listen to the work of any prog rock band that's been around for a long time (including a certain one which made a 'comeback' with a different singer).  But, again....relation?  I don't see a strong one. It is altogether different music.

I also always stress that progressive rock and progressive metal are two different things. But then, if most prog-metal doesn't come close to the broad and complex approach of 70s progressive rock, I also support it not being completely written off, because it can transcend metal's limitations and be 100% prog. It just doesn't happen that often. :P

The majority of prog fans I have conversed with in the last 30 years seem to disagree with the "different flavour genre" theory. It's based on some ideology about their own ego. For example....they may feel shattered by the realization that progressive elements for progressive songwriting were originally developed by the Beatles and others...and quickly making it's way into the "Top 40" pop scene of the 60's. Prog ...in it's developing stages was actually a simple idea thought up by musicians. In the early years of "Surf Music" there was the existence of longer extensive guitar lines played in instrumental surf songs. Some of them were easy to play while others required skill with fast right hand alternate picking techniques. Many people found it laughable posing the question "Why would anyone desire to play a moronic sounding song like that?"  Obviously they were ignorant to the times of the 50's and 60's when artists like Fats Domino played clusters of notes in "Rock n' Roll" that were not indicated by his listeners and not connected in the historical sense that....during that time artists of many genre's were experimenting with music of the mainstream and developing a new progressive mentality of playing. He was one of the first musicians to play a boring pentatonic scale and add a jazz feel to it and a musical curve which inspired keyboardists to play with more expanded ideas. Booker T. and the MG'S who were a huge influence to Jeff Beck and many others by that time had changed the approach to how one could compose. The Ventures were influential in this department as well.

Edited by TODDLER - December 04 2011 at 20:34