Flicking through some of the other topics I've noticed this bizarre trend - classifying prog rock within extraordinarily narrow parameters.

It seems that a band must:

1. Write songs over 5 minutes in length

2. Take those songs through seveal changes of tempo and mood

3. All bands must feature musicians capable of noodling away for a week and a half without pausing for food, water or bathroom breaks. 

(Also, though unstated, it seems possession of daft-as-a-brush singer with a voice like seal on helium is a bonus.)

Is that what prog is? I thought it was about music being progressive, you know, as in moving forward... there are plenty of bands who don't fit any of the above criteria who I reckon are progressive - Radiohead and Sigur Ros being two (although Sigur Ros do have long songs and a singer with an oddly pitched voice).

So people, just what the hell is prog and can you define it in such narrow terms?

There have been a few threads on this in the past, and only two certain things have arisen (both utterly inaccurate, and yet both appealingly right!);

1) Prog is music for the mind, not the feet.

2) Prog is not the same as progressive. You just know it when you hear it.

The second accounts for the fact that not all prog is rock, but much music can be progressive, and the first only loses accuracy when you think of the more groovy bands that get you on your feet.

In short, I don't think it can be defined in narrow terms - just through experience in listening to lots of it 

Personally, I would add Radiohead to the ever-bourgeoning list of prog bands - but they probably wouldn't thank me

Definitely don't think they'd thank you. Read an interview with Jonny Greenwood in which he said he'd listened to some Floyd and was distinctly unimpressed - then again I was distinctly unimpressed by his Bodysong soundtrack

And I'd entirely agree with the second point, prog is music you just instictively have a feel for, though a lot of it doesn't have much feel at all! I'be been listening to it for 20 odd years and I'm always drawn to the same kind of sounds in music so I guess most of the stuff I listen to (repeatedly) falls into the 'prog' category.

Mind you, on the first for the mind not the feet - my girlfriend does a helluva crazy dance to Radiohead's 'Climbing Up the Walls'

It seems that a band must: 1. Write songs over 5 minutes in length

Nope, just listen The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, it's full of short tracks and it's considered a prog' icon.

It seems that a band must: 2. Take those songs through seveal changes of tempo and mood

Not always, just listen Camel, but I like music that has many changes.

All bands must feature musicians capable of noodling away for a week and a half without pausing for food, water or bathroom breaks.

LMAO -

Inflected Form(s): noo·dled; noo·dling
Etymology: imitative
: to improvise on an instrument in an informal or desultory manner

No way either, many progressive rock bands are full of musicians that are very precise and it's based in well structured music. Some prog' musicians don't make many improvisations, remember, we are talking about prog' rock, not about jazz.

(Also, though unstated, it seems possession of daft-as-a-brush singer with a voice like seal on helium is a bonus.)

No way José!!! Daft as a brush is a term I won't use to qualify almost any prog vocalist, but about high voices, I prefer bands with vocalists as Peter Gabriel or Greg Lake than the ones from Yes or Rush , but David Surkamp is special even though he sounds as Geddy Lee with double helium.

Is that what prog is? I thought it was about music being progressive, you know, as in moving forward...

Progressive Rock is a genre with some characteristics, the same as Jazz, Blues, Gospel or POP, the genre as nothing to do with the fact that the band moves forward or changes.

Genesis changed and according to some people moved forward and they turned to  crap, The Who, The Beatles, Radiohead are progressive bands because they are (or were) one step forward than others from their time, but none of those are part of the progressive rock genre IMO.

Iván

I dealed with this question for a while. I don't think you can reduce prog only to long songs with many time changes and so on. It's just an idea, but can't you say prog is in some ways the follower of the romantic music (the music from the 19th century)? Blues, Rock'n'Roll, etc. don't have much in common with this music but listening to prog rock I get the feeling that it just takes the idea (I can't explain) behind romantic music and leads it to another level.

Just to think about...

I've spent a lot of philosophy classes avoiding circular reasoning, so now I'll indulge myself.

Prog is the kind of music that people who are into prog tend to prefer.

 I think that it's a nasty slang term for a Frenchman who listens to a lot of Yes, Genesis, ELP and the like....

(Either that, or a British sailor's drink made from watered rum and partridge blood.)

AND ROUND AND ROUND WE GO, WHERE SHE STOPS NO ONE KNOWS..........

WELCOME BACK MOOSEMAN

as you can see not much has changed

Very simple--prog is really good music.

And then more serious--Prog was never really a recognized type of music like jazz,blues...I think prog is just a word invented by the listeners or even reviewers at the time.But I think it have a lot in common with word progressive which is the word that is used in a lot of other genres.So I think prog has nothing to do with how longe the song is or is it a conceptual album or the things like that.Every band has his own form of music and if the music was out of the standard streams was kind of progressive.It could be in jazz in blues even in rave or any kind of music.And we are talking about rock here so it's prog rock.We all now which are the bands we are talking about.

I don't know.Am I philosophing?

I asked my father(he is really an old rocker and he was in London in 69,70 and at that times he was visiting all of the concerts he could see)and he said that they were calling sympho rock all these band like yes,genesis...