Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=85459 Printed Date: April 29 2025 at 08:46 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog DefinitionPosted By: dtguitarfan
Subject: Prog Definition
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 12:51
What is your definition of the word "progressive", when it's used in the phrase "progressive rock"? I've often heard people say "this band is progressive" or "this band is NOT progressive" and I start wondering if we're talking about the same thing.... I'll give my definition after a few people have answered but I'm just curious to see what people say.
Replies: Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:01
Well, you are new here, so I will be as polite as it is possible to be when I tell you that this is probably the most worn out, and debated to death, topic on the forum.
And the answer is?........................
Well, there is, as far as I am concerned, no definitive answer. Each person, as you will see, has their own definition. That's why it has been debated to death
For what it is worth, I regard it as a form of music that grew out of the late 1960's in Britain (mainly England) that mixed blues, psychedelia, and classical symphonic tendencies to create an album artform that progressed the music of the day, pushing the boundaries of rock music in a way that had never been tried before.
Of course, progressive rock music itself has progressed since then!
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: Sagichim
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:04
Nobody here really knows
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:04
Sorry if I'm recreating a thread.
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:06
dtguitarfan wrote:
Sorry if I'm recreating a thread.
It's okay. You are not on your own!!
It's just that those of us who have been here a while tend to get a bit tired of this debate, because, ultimately, it degenerates into nonsense.
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: The Neck Romancer
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:07
This thread is not progressive.
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:08
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Sorry if I'm recreating a thread.
It's okay. You are not on your own!!
It's just that those of us who have been here a while tend to get a bit tired of this debate, because, ultimately, it degenerates into nonsense.
However, if tomorrow you come back and create a thread that asks why don't women like prog, you will be permabanned.
-------------
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:09
Polo wrote:
This thread is not progressive.
*golf clap*
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:11
rushfan4 wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Sorry if I'm recreating a thread.
It's okay. You are not on your own!!
It's just that those of us who have been here a while tend to get a bit tired of this debate, because, ultimately, it degenerates into nonsense.
However, if tomorrow you come back and create a thread that asks why don't women like prog, you will be permabanned.
Scott, you are a very bad man
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:12
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:14
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:14
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:16
I had no idea it was such a sh*tty genre...
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:17
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.) Although I suppose us Americans may be the only ones who list July 4th as 7/4.
-------------
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:20
rushfan4 wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.)
Hmph! Correctly.
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:26
akamaisondufromage wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.)
Hmph! Correctly.
Damn right!!
You know, this might turn out to be the best prog definition thread ever.
Why don't we now start debating just who we are all going to hate when he/she places a here?
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: Atoms
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:31
lazland wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.)
Hmph! Correctly.
Why don't we now start debating just who we are all going to hate when he/she places a here?
You just made it very tempting! However, I will refrain.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:41
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 13:59
Agree, but more than elitism I'd say etilism. Think to some now fat bassist-singer.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 18:35
dtguitarfan wrote:
Sorry if I'm recreating a thread.
You're not recreating a thread, you're making the entire tapestry.
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music
Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 19:14
There's a slight possibility that you haven't read this yet: http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition
------------- Always thinking in extremes.That's my way to beat boredom.
Posted By: javier0889
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 19:34
I still think it's beautiful music played by ugly people with too much hair (and sometimes not where it's supposed to be).
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/javier0889
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 22:12
^So in other words, it's just like classical music (although most of the hair was really wigs).
Someone should start a prog band where all the members wear powdered wigs
------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 01:21
rushfan4 wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.) Although I suppose us Americans may be the only ones who list July 4th as 7/4.
Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that listing the date in the very logical way of day-month-year, is a bit more logical than month-day-year. Along with the mile, Farenheit, Gallon, Blablubla, I think the rest of the world wins this one.
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 01:28
^ funny stuff
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 02:19
Astronomy Domine is in 12/8, a stellar date for Capt. Kirk.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 03:46
frippism wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.) Although I suppose us Americans may be the only ones who list July 4th as 7/4.
Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that listing the date in the very logical way of day-month-year, is a bit more logical than month-day-year. Along with the mile, Farenheit, Gallon, Blablubla, I think the rest of the world wins this one.
This guy is right and I'm with him. May the meter and the kilogramm be the universal measures!
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 03:53
Its all very easy really Prog is not rocket science:
Progressive Rock is an attempt to musically orgasm as many times as possible during a 15-minute song.
Just The Facts
Progressive rock is categorized by a sacking of traditional song structure, complex rhythms, odd time signatures and a sense of inherent superiority over other rock genres
Because of this, it's pretty much never been popular
It is the only rock genre in which the term "flute solo" has any meaning
Everything You Need to Know About Progressive Rock
There is no clear definition of progressive rock, as it is not bounded by convention, structure, tradition or common sense. Progressive rock is like the anti-socialite of music; there are no rules or restrictions.
However, progressive rock bands have typically featured:
Extremely skilled guitarists, drummers, bassists and keyboardists
Okay singers
Huge egos
Tons of drugspiration
No sense of when to stop a song
A typical prog band.
Basically, progressive rock is anything-goes rock music. If you feel like adding a 30-second audio clip of some farm animals orgasming in the middle of your song, that's a-ok by progressive standards. Hell, it's even encouraged. Literally anything you can record a sound of is welcome in progressive rock.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 04:11
CPicard wrote:
frippism wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Even if you come back on July 4th, it is not a good thing. (That would be April 7th for those on the other side of the ocean who list their dates funny.) Although I suppose us Americans may be the only ones who list July 4th as 7/4.
Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that listing the date in the very logical way of day-month-year, is a bit more logical than month-day-year. Along with the mile, Farenheit, Gallon, Blablubla, I think the rest of the world wins this one.
This guy is right and I'm with him. May the meter and the kilogramm be the universal measures!
What a waste of human creativity and intellegence - measument should be in whatever units are readily to hand when things need measuring - I seldom carry around a standard metre or a balance and a set of weights - length is measured in cigarette packets and weight in Mars Bars (also can be used for lenght, volume and monetary value).
------------- What?
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 04:12
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 04:35
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 06:30
Epic post Scott
------------- Always thinking in extremes.That's my way to beat boredom.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 06:38
progprogprog wrote:
Epic post Scott
No, that's not epic, that's cut and paste.
------------- What?
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 07:14
i didn't even know progrock existed before i happened across this site back in 2004. I had just bought my first computer and wanted to see if I could find anything about Hungarian nband Omegs. I said to myself " so that's what I've been listening to all these years " .
-------------
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 07:14
lazland wrote:
...
For what it is worth, I regard it as a form of music that grew out of the late 1960's in Britain (mainly England) that mixed blues, psychedelia, and classical symphonic tendencies to create an album artform that progressed the music of the day, pushing the boundaries of rock music in a way that had never been tried before.
Of course, progressive rock music itself has progressed since then!
I would venture to state that this grew out of the 60's in many places. There was a lot of "progressive" music in France/Paris, just like there was in US/LA, or US/NY, or US/SF ... however, the US version is all buried in Woodstock with all the garbage. No one remembers anything and the music was not important or valuable at all ... we were too stoned and drunk and having fun to give a darn! Japan also had its own version, influenced by the rock generation as well.
We might discuss the UFO and other clubs that helped make this, but we probably should give the Filmore West a serious consideration, although we tend to think of Grateful Dead's 4 to 5 hour excusrions, or Allman Brothers same long excursions as not valid, and just another styled In a Gadda's. Some were. Some weren't. But then, a lot of that early English stuff was also just an extended pop song ... or an extended solo in the middle, and I'm not sure that really helps the "definition" of "progressive music".
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 07:15
]i didn't even know progrock existed before I happened across this site back in 2004. I had just bought my first computer and wanted to see if I could find anything about Hungarian nband Omegs. I said to myself " so that's what I've been listening to all these years " .
[/QUOTE] i still scratch my head over all these invented subgenres.
-------------
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 07:20
Dean wrote:
...
What a waste of human creativity and intellegence - measument should be in whatever units are readily to hand when things need measuring - I seldom carry around a standard metre or a balance and a set of weights - length is measured in cigarette packets and weight in Mars Bars (also can be used for lenght, volume and monetary value).
Nice ... very nice!
And if someone adds music, paint or words to it fine ... and we would probably call it "progressive" ... but I'm trying out this new kick that if you have to use a metronome and measure the music, it definitly is not progressive. It's either commercial or pop!
Hehehe!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 09:02
Ok, so this is cool because I've read the definition they have up on progarchives and the one from cracked that atmiccrimsonrush posted. When my buddies and I did our radio shows on NPR we tried to condense the definition for the sake of time. I think there are 4 qualifications that separate a progressive band or artist from the rest of their genre (so there can be progressive jazz, progressive folk, etc.). They are: 1) a composition style that flows more like a narrative than poetry (verse/chorus/verse/chorus) 2) Longer songs 3) Instrumental sections, sometimes very technical 4) The usage of uncommon time signatures (compound time)
I would say to be progressive, a band or artist doesn't have to display all 4 of these, but they have to at least have #1 or #4, or else people could qualify jam bands as Prog. Now I've heard some people use the definition that a progressive band is one that continually changes it's style from album to album, or progresses. I disagree because then a band that switched from jazz to polka to alt. rock would be progressive. I've also heard people say "(fill in the blank) band is not progressive because they sound like another band." I don't agree with that either because that would mean there are very few truly progressive artists and they all lived thousands of years ago. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with my definition of orog...so, whatever. ;-)
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 13:37
It's something we can not describe but we can recognize when we hear it, a bit like what physicists say about quantum mechanics (replace "hear it" by "see it" or better "detect it with our instruments or experiments").
When are we starting the discussion about the difference between "Prog" and "Progressive"?
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 13:52
Everything stuck between Psychedelic folies and Post Punk fury.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 14:15
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar: no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it
-------------
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 14:21
ExittheLemming wrote:
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar: no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it
Other common points: - It's in 1969 that Denmark legalized porn movies, the year of King Crimson's first LP. - The best porn movies were released in the 70's, just like the best prog LPs. - It's all about showing off. - No one will confess having a huge collection of it.
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 15:00
ExittheLemming wrote:
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar: no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it
Yeah, and who wants porn when you can have Peter Gabriel dressed like a Slippermen
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 15:03
ExittheLemming wrote:
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar: no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it
You nailed it.
On a side note Robert Fripp won a settlement for the music of Larks' being used in the soft core porn film Emmanuelle.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 16:17
moshkito wrote:
Dean wrote:
...
What a waste of human creativity and intellegence - measument should be in whatever units are readily to hand when things need measuring - I seldom carry around a standard metre or a balance and a set of weights - length is measured in cigarette packets and weight in Mars Bars (also can be used for lenght, volume and monetary value).
Nice ... very nice!
And if someone adds music, paint or words to it fine ... and we would probably call it "progressive" ... but I'm trying out this new kick that if you have to use a metronome and measure the music, it definitly is not progressive. It's either commercial or pop!
Hehehe!
Steady Pedro, I may know precious little of the liberal and/or fine arts or the bohemian pastime (waste-time) of inventing hyperbole and rhetoric on the esoterica aesthetic, or the elitist concept/conceit of style over substance, but here you are entering directly into my realm where I earn my living, that pays my mortgage and puts bread on the table and I can happily regard as being well within my sphere of comfortable knowledge: metrology.
For if there was ever an ‘ology’ where I could claim a measure of expertise, this would be it.
And the first rule of mensuration is to make people aware of the dimensions you are working with - to set the yardstick or the benchmark, (literally - a chalk-mark made on the work bench by which lengths were measured for cutting), from which all measurements are referenced, so that all can relate and agree with the measurements being made – and here it matters little precisely what that yardstick is, as long as it remains a constant, unbending and unyielding – it pays not to measure your waistline with an elastic band when going to buy a pair of shorts. So you define the parameters by which you work and by which you can make an account and you make aware to all these are the yardsticks, benchmarks or Mars Bars that you are using and they are a standard, fixed and unchanging, so there is no ambiguity or confusion that paves the way for argument and misunderstanding when someone uses Milkyway or Hershey Bars instead of the standard Mars. This is the common ground and the lingua franca we use to communicate, open and plain for all to see; it is not an invented secret paradigm known only to a chosen few that is used to cast some in-joke to titter behind as some earnest but unsuspecting neophyte trips and stumbles into a gaping gulf of guffawing gaffs.
The second rule of mensuration is the accumulation of errors (that result when each is measured with respect to the previous one) must be avoided; rather we should relate every measure back to the golden standard (the original yardstick or benchmark). Here is where we find that, to our cost, when we do not take into account this accumulation of errors and attempt to land our Starship troopers on the dark side of the Moon we find the controls are set for the heart of the Sun; the addition of all the little errors in each incremental measurement we make produce a significantly large error from where we started from, taking us out of the ball-park and dumping us in the Wal*mart parking lot. Around here we call this the "if X then Y" fallacy, running along the lines that if the frog was a Prince and the Prince was a brick then it does not follow that all bricks are frogs. (Or more simplistically: If all Music is Art and all Progressive Rock is Music, that does not mean that all Art is Progressive).
The third rule of mensuration is that extrapolation comes at a price, that there is an inevitable and unavoidable confidence factor attached to all measurement that determines how far we can stretch a definition or a measure before it loses its value - here it is the direction rather than the magnitude that creates the error - standing close to the edge of a cliff seven steps on one direction takes you to safety, but get the direction wrong and it's not the drop that will kill you, more the uncomfortable landing. So it is not how many times we move away from our starting point, but which of the many characteristics that defines that starting point we chose to move (or more accurately, which characteristic we chose to measure to see if the subject we are measuring is related to initial object we used to define our standard). A simple rule-of-thumb we can use here is if the thing we measure is only applicable to some and not all, then it is not a defining characteristic, for example some Prog is experimental, but not all Prog is experimental, so extrapolating experimental nature in music as being progressive reduces the confidence factor that the music fits within the boundaries of Progressive Rock if other more common factors and characteristics are not present.
This of course begs the question of what these common factors are, but more than that it requires an answer in a common language, the lingua franca of musicians and musicologists, of amateurs and professionals, of fans and academics.
In music, the language and terminology that forms the baseline for these measurement parameters was set long ago, long before the Crimson Kings and Blue Moodies, way, way back to Pythagoras (who heard harmony in the Spheres) and Aristotle (who deemed all music to be imitative), and that basic language and vocabulary of music has been in constant development and refinement since then, reaching its peak during the Renaissance were we get most of our measures of time, harmony, pitch, tempo, rhythm, coloration, timbre and even emotion and most of our definitions of structure and form, of composition and arrangement – all well-tempered that it was. That's over 400 years of measurement and definition, classification and description all using a common language that anyone can understand regardless of their native tongue or place (and time) of birth, a language that transcends culture and heritage and philosophy and age and gender and race and religion and bridges countless other gaps and differences we didn't even know existed. And we can do this because we all accept that the language and measurements we use are constant and repeatable and mean the same thing today as they did yesterday and will tomorrow and they will mean the same thing to me as they did to Johan Sebastian Bach and György Ligeti and (even) John Cage and Holger Czukay and Phideaux Xavier and John Petrucci and Jan Akerman and anyone else who knows what polyphony and arpeggio and semi-quaver and even-temper means.
Without all this we are just talking meaningless gibberish and jabberish, the mimsy of Carroll and the runcible of Lear, (neologisms though they may be), have no context beyond the borogoves and spoons.
------------- What?
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 17:04
ExittheLemming wrote:
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar
If are heavily into either (or both) there is a good chance that most women will avoid you like the plague.
------------- Magma America Great Make Again
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 17:20
Far out, Dean. Learned a lot from that post. It made a lot of sense, since I analyze/manipulate data for a living, and keeping proper controls in place is crucial to both meaningful and accurate measurement. I'd elaborate, but I'm off the clock at the moment.
edit: I confess I'd never come across the term "mensuration" before though. I kept thinking I was reading something else.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 19:04
Blacksword wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
I'm ashamed to say I don't really know exactly what a time signature is, and am barely able to recognize if the music is in an odd time signature (and there's no way I'll know in which time signature it is). However, I remember reading about an interview with Gilmour, or Waters, about the 7/4 time signature on Money. The thing is, the band were suposed to be playing in traditional 4/4, while they put the sax player (Dick Parry) to play in 7/4.
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 19:08
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
Its all very easy really Prog is not rocket science:
Many of this things are as a matter of fact somewhat acurate, even if they are shown as a semi-joke. However, as far as I understand, the drugs point I believe is the one that is rather inacurrate. I believe prog bands were not particularly fond of drugs (not more than any other rock/pop genre, at least), and as a matter of fact, I believe there were some prog musicians that were openly against narcotics... in a good measure, because being "high" wouldn't allow you to be at your top for playing.
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 21:23
Dellinger wrote:
being "high" wouldn't allow you to be at your top for playing.
The great saxophonist Charlie Parker said that he never could have played as well as he did if he hadn't been high.
------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 23:05
A very informative post by Dean on mensuration but I don't think prog rock or most rock genres for that matter are characterized rigorously. Many labels are informed purely by subjective perceptions and often reinforced by the media to the point where it becomes redundant to abandon such labels even if it is understood that these labels are not very informative about the nature of the music. Prog rock is a little better in that regard than such labels as Seattle grunge.
I actually believe characterizing prog strictly through the academic framework is an excellent idea but I don't believe that is the actual practice. And it is both difficult and unrealistic to put it into practice because rock music is for pleasure and emotional attachment, not intensive academic pursuit. Prog is not separated from this by such a great degree.
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 23:54
CPicard wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar: no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it
Other common points: - It's in 1969 that Denmark legalized porn movies, the year of King Crimson's first LP. - The best porn movies were released in the 70's, just like the best prog LPs. - It's all about showing off. - No one will confess having a huge collection of it.
brilliant both of you, and possibly the most descriptive statements on Prog to date. I would add; size matters, both length and girth; if you last longer than the next guy you're in demand; and somehow cheesy keyboards always find their way into things.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 02:28
rogerthat wrote:
A very informative post by Dean on mensuration but I don't think prog rock or most rock genres for that matter are characterized rigorously. Many labels are informed purely by subjective perceptions and often reinforced by the media to the point where it becomes redundant to abandon such labels even if it is understood that these labels are not very informative about the nature of the music. Prog rock is a little better in that regard than such labels as Seattle grunge.
I actually believe characterizing prog strictly through the academic framework is an excellent idea but I don't believe that is the actual practice. And it is both difficult and unrealistic to put it into practice because rock music is for pleasure and emotional attachment, not intensive academic pursuit. Prog is not separated from this by such a great degree.
It isn't a matter of rigor but of consistency.
Music is characterised all the time, even Prog Rock, everyone who listens to a piece of music characterises it whether they want to or not - this is a learned process based upon an intuitive trait inherent in all animals with ears. This is the basis for Iain's "no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it" - each of us builds a little memory-model of what Prog sounds like based upon the characteristics we pick out of a broad-base of Prog we listen to, guided by some characteristics we've been told that could exist, such as layering and unusual time signatures (if we can be spot them) and blending of various styles and all those other wonderful things mentioned in this and every other thread and article on "what is Prog" - for many these will simply be the triggers that create pleasure or emotion attachment, but those triggers will be there and they will be in other pieces of music that trigger the same response.
The problem therein is not that this model is inaccurate, or is the result of rigorous characterisation: the model serves us well as long as we keep it to ourselves and don't compare the results we obtain in using it with sets of results from other people using their own memory-models. To do that we need to identify commonality in all those individual models, and to do that we each need to be able to articulate in relational and universally understandable terms the measures we used in our personal model and the accuracy with which we applied them - so not only do we have to create a consistency in what we use to identify Prog from Grunge and in the way we apply those values, but there has to be consistency in all the personally models used so we end up talking the same language about the same things.
------------- What?
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 02:45
Atavachron wrote:
CPicard wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
Prog and Porn are not that dissimilar: no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it
Other common points: - It's in 1969 that Denmark legalized porn movies, the year of King Crimson's first LP. - The best porn movies were released in the 70's, just like the best prog LPs. - It's all about showing off. - No one will confess having a huge collection of it.
brilliant both of you, and possibly the most descriptive statements on Prog to date. I would add; size matters, both length and girth; if you last longer than the next guy you're in demand; and somehow cheesy keyboards always find their way into things.
And those who don't understand it, see those of us who do as a bunch of w*****s
------------- Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 03:07
Dean wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
A very informative post by Dean on mensuration but I don't think prog rock or most rock genres for that matter are characterized rigorously. Many labels are informed purely by subjective perceptions and often reinforced by the media to the point where it becomes redundant to abandon such labels even if it is understood that these labels are not very informative about the nature of the music. Prog rock is a little better in that regard than such labels as Seattle grunge.
I actually believe characterizing prog strictly through the academic framework is an excellent idea but I don't believe that is the actual practice. And it is both difficult and unrealistic to put it into practice because rock music is for pleasure and emotional attachment, not intensive academic pursuit. Prog is not separated from this by such a great degree.
It isn't a matter of rigor but of consistency.
Music is characterised all the time, even Prog Rock, everyone who listens to a piece of music characterises it whether they want to or not - this is a learned process based upon an intuitive trait inherent in all animals with ears. This is the basis for Iain's "no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it" - each of us builds a little memory-model of what Prog sounds like based upon the characteristics we pick out of a broad-base of Prog we listen to, guided by some characteristics we've been told that could exist, such as layering and unusual time signatures (if we can be spot them) and blending of various styles and all those other wonderful things mentioned in this and every other thread and article on "what is Prog" - for many these will simply be the triggers that create pleasure or emotion attachment, but those triggers will be there and they will be in other pieces of music that trigger the same response.
The problem therein is not that this model is inaccurate, or is the result of rigorous characterisation: the model serves us well as long as we keep it to ourselves and don't compare the results we obtain in using it with sets of results from other people using their own memory-models. To do that we need to identify commonality in all those individual models, and to do that we each need to be able to articulate in relational and universally understandable terms the measures we used in our personal model and the accuracy with which we applied them - so not only do we have to create a consistency in what we use to identify Prog from Grunge and in the way we apply those values, but there has to be consistency in all the personally models used so we end up talking the same language about the same things.
Perhaps, I am trying to say the same thing...that there is not a whole lot of consistency in the characterization of many rock genres and that applies to prog. I personally believe structure and especially the ability to look at structure from an innovative or creative angle is very important in prog while for some others, it is all about odd time sigs. I don't see odd time sigs as narrow enough a criterion to be that important to characterize prog. Not that I am right about it or they are wrong, but in this way, it gets tough to zero in on some consistent set of characteristics that tell us that it is prog.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 03:43
Dellinger wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
I'm ashamed to say I don't really know exactly what a time signature is, and am barely able to recognize if the music is in an odd time signature (and there's no way I'll know in which time signature it is). However, I remember reading about an interview with Gilmour, or Waters, about the 7/4 time signature on Money. The thing is, the band were suposed to be playing in traditional 4/4, while they put the sax player (Dick Parry) to play in 7/4.
The 7/4 of Money begins in the cash-register sound effect at the start - counting those seven equally space individual sound effects is pretty simple and sets the counting-tempo for the entrance of Water's bass-line which is also in 7/4 - spilt into 3 and 4 - "One Two Three One Two Three Four"... the actual rhythm is in triplets (each quarter note is subdivided into 3 eighth notes), so to sound-out the counting you would go "One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a Four-and-a" etc. Water's actually plays eight notes in each bar, with two notes being played on the second beat, like this:
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
4
and
a
Dum
Da
Da
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
During Parry's solo (and Gilmour's) it changes to common time.
------------- What?
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:06
My take on the odd time signature theme is that if it's transparently odd it
ain't usually successful i.e. stock off the shelf riffage with beats
added or subtracted to appear 'difficult' or 'clever' or sophisticated
always dies on it's a.r.s.e while a musical idea with phrase length that
breathes naturally and musically and resolves itself over 5, 7, 9 etc
beats will be hardly noticeable as 'odd'
Dean's Money example is a good one (see also Living In the Past, Tarkus, Solsbury Hill, Dance On a Volcano, Watcher of the Skies etc)
Odd meters are like soccer refs (you don't notice the good ones cos they make the game flow)
-------------
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:09
ExittheLemming wrote:
My take on the odd time signature theme is that if it's transparently odd it
ain't usually successful i.e. stock off the shelf riffage with beats
added or subtracted to appear 'difficult' or 'clever' or sophisticated
always dies on it's a.r.s.e while a musical idea with phrase length that
breathes naturally and musically and resolves itself over 5, 7, 9 etc
beats will be hardly noticeable as 'odd'
Dean's Money example is a good one (see also Living In the Past, Tarkus, Solsbury Hill, Dance On a Volcano, Watcher of the Skies etc)
Odd meters are like soccer refs (you don't notice the good ones cos they make the game flow)
Well put! It also depends on the selection of percussion instruments, though rock tends to rely mainly on drums. 7/8 for eg is not considered odd at all in Indian music but that is because such time sigs don't 'sound' odd with tabla or dhol.
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:13
rogerthat wrote:
A very informative post by Dean on mensuration but I don't think prog rock or most rock genres for that matter are characterized rigorously. Many labels are informed purely by subjective perceptions and often reinforced by the media to the point where it becomes redundant to abandon such labels even if it is understood that these labels are not very informative about the nature of the music. Prog rock is a little better in that regard than such labels as Seattle grunge.
I actually believe characterizing prog strictly through the academic framework is an excellent idea but I don't believe that is the actual practice. And it is both difficult and unrealistic to put it into practice because rock music is for pleasure and emotional attachment, not intensive academic pursuit. Prog is not separated from this by such a great degree.
Er, wasn't Dean's post made for the lulz? I may understood it the wrong way, but I tend to believe that Dean wrote something on the verge of parody.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:26
^ he's British, if we say we love you we always ask for either a receipt or where you keep your valuables
-------------
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:28
CPicard wrote:
Er, wasn't Dean's post made for the lulz? I may understood it the wrong way, but I tend to believe that Dean wrote something on the verge of parody.
'twas written in humorous style, (not parody as that would be cruel, and I lack the skill for accurate mimicry), but the content was sound and valid.
------------- What?
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:35
ExittheLemming wrote:
My take on the odd time signature theme is that if it's transparently odd it ain't usually successful i.e. stock off the shelf riffage with beats added or subtracted to appear 'difficult' or 'clever' or sophisticated always dies on it's a.r.s.e while a musical idea with phrase length that breathes naturally and musically and resolves itself over 5, 7, 9 etc beats will be hardly noticeable as 'odd' Dean's Money example is a good one (see also Living In the Past, Tarkus, Solsbury Hill, Dance On a Volcano, Watcher of the Skies etc) Odd meters are like soccer refs (you don't notice the good ones cos they make the game flow)
Like Roger, I think the value of unusual time signatures is too broad to be a definining criteria - I also think it is neither common enough, they are the exception rather than the rule; nor are they (as you say) instantly noticable... when it works it is the last thing you notice.
------------- What?
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:44
^ Yep, I'd never to be party to implying 'odd meters' are a defining criteria for Prog (but I heartily loathe the abiding conceit of difficult to play = aesthetic merit)
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 04:58
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 05:00
^ that's weird...I'm British and have NEVER heard anyone use the term in that way
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 05:06
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ that's weird...I'm British and have NEVER heard anyone use the term in that way
Look it's on the internet. You aren't really British, are you?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 05:18
Dean wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
A very informative post by Dean on mensuration but I don't think prog rock or most rock genres for that matter are characterized rigorously. Many labels are informed purely by subjective perceptions and often reinforced by the media to the point where it becomes redundant to abandon such labels even if it is understood that these labels are not very informative about the nature of the music. Prog rock is a little better in that regard than such labels as Seattle grunge.
I actually believe characterizing prog strictly through the academic framework is an excellent idea but I don't believe that is the actual practice. And it is both difficult and unrealistic to put it into practice because rock music is for pleasure and emotional attachment, not intensive academic pursuit. Prog is not separated from this by such a great degree.
It isn't a matter of rigor but of consistency.
Music is characterised all the time, even Prog Rock, everyone who listens to a piece of music characterises it whether they want to or not - this is a learned process based upon an intuitive trait inherent in all animals with ears. This is the basis for Iain's "no-one can define it but everyone claims to know it when they see/hear it" - each of us builds a little memory-model of what Prog sounds like based upon the characteristics we pick out of a broad-base of Prog we listen to, guided by some characteristics we've been told that could exist, such as layering and unusual time signatures (if we can be spot them) and blending of various styles and all those other wonderful things mentioned in this and every other thread and article on "what is Prog" - for many these will simply be the triggers that create pleasure or emotion attachment, but those triggers will be there and they will be in other pieces of music that trigger the same response.
The problem therein is not that this model is inaccurate, or is the result of rigorous characterisation: the model serves us well as long as we keep it to ourselves and don't compare the results we obtain in using it with sets of results from other people using their own memory-models. To do that we need to identify commonality in all those individual models, and to do that we each need to be able to articulate in relational and universally understandable terms the measures we used in our personal model and the accuracy with which we applied them - so not only do we have to create a consistency in what we use to identify Prog from Grunge and in the way we apply those values, but there has to be consistency in all the personally models used so we end up talking the same language about the same things.
I think that may be the most brilliant thing I've ever heard anyone say about this topic.
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 05:41
Slartibartfast wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ that's weird...I'm British and have NEVER heard anyone use the term in that way
Look it's on the internet. You aren't really British, are you?
He is, but this word is probably obsolete as I have never heard it used either.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 05:46
Snow Dog wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ that's weird...I'm British and have NEVER heard anyone use the term in that way
Look it's on the internet. You aren't really British, are you?
He is, but this word is probably obsolete as I have never heard it used either.
I had some for tea last night, with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
------------- What?
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 09:48
This is the best book I've read about the genre. it's a sholarly work, but at the same time addresses other asoects of progrock from album covers to why it is hated with a vengeance by certain critics.
I wonder if the Author Edward Macan, a musicologist and universtiy proffesor ever taught any of this or if progrock has ever been considered worthy of academic study. I took music appreciation courses in both CEGEP and university and the genre was loathed by my profs. One even got me to bring albums in so he could demonstrate to the class what wasn't music! However one lady prof who taught a classical music appreciation course was so thrilled by my Hamburger Concerto record that she went out and bought herself a copy. I remember a thread about three years ago that discussed the book here. Maybe someone can dig it up.
-------------
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 09:54
dtguitarfan wrote:
...
I think that may be the most brilliant thing I've ever heard anyone say about this topic.
Honestly ... this is not "brilliant" ... it's much more than that ... it's REAL ... and that is the issue that arises, when we want a definition for something, but are not willing to discuss the criteria to create that definition. And this gets even more difficult when different countries did it differently ... and had different motivations for doing what they did.
So, in some ways the definition has to be simple enough to be difficult. But, for example, specifying it as just odd meters and such ... is like saying that no onther music has odd meters, which is definitly crazy!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 10:08
One question Pedro - why do you keep asserting that we are not willing to discuss this that and the other, usually while we're in the process of actually discussing them?
------------- What?
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 10:57
I finally figured what's wrong with this site: we don't and English Progressive Rock subgenre, or something like Limey Prog.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 13:30
Dean wrote:
One question Pedro - why do you keep asserting that we are not willing to discuss this that and the other, usually while we're in the process of actually discussing them?
Dean, if there was an interest in that question you would have asked me in a forum where I can speak up and out. You're not interested in an answer, I do not believe, and I have given up asking you folks about it, and making suggestions, because "PA" is a closed book ... or should I say ... a "deadend" database, where all information gets buried and lost.
And Wikipedia gets more credit than you guys do ... which in my book is enough to say ... we need to get better at PA ... but no ... you go after Mosh ... with Snow Dog!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 13:36
^PA is mainly a reviewing site. Always has been. Never had pretentions to be anything else. One can discuss virtually anything in the forum though, so I don't understand your point.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 13:51
moshkito wrote:
Dean wrote:
One question Pedro - why do you keep asserting that we are not willing to discuss this that and the other, usually while we're in the process of actually discussing them?
Dean, if there was an interest in that question you would have asked me in a forum where I can speak up and out. You're not interested in an answer, I do not believe, and I have given up asking you folks about it, and making suggestions, because "PA" is a closed book ... or should I say ... a "deadend" database, where all information gets buried and lost.
What is it you do here but speak up and out? I say it is a fair question - you say we are not willing to discuss this that and the other but when I reply to any of your posts you simply ignore them and then weeks later post some oblique post in an unrelated thread making a sarcastic or snide jibe at something I said - like the oft repeated Pop Music snipe that appears in this thread and many other following the original post where I made it (and by taking out of context like you continue to do its meaning is being lost). As Ian has just said - and I have said many times - we are a review site where anyone can write and publish a review of any album we have listed here - we are not an encyclopedia or the definative musicological reference site for all styles of Progressive Rock - we list thousands of bands each with a brief biogrpahy and a complete discography of everything they've released so people can write reviews - that's it - that's all we are, that's all we want to be. The forum is just a playground for people to talk and discuss - we're not going to change the world or become a centre of knowledge and excellence of all things Prog, it's just a forum.
moshkito wrote:
And Wikipedia gets more credit than you guys do ... which in my book is enough to say ... we need to get better at PA ... but no ... you go after Mosh ... with Snow Dog!
Until now, I have never "gone after you". But I just asked a simple question about something that irks me, but you are not willing to discuss this, that or the other.
------------- What?
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 14:01
^Can I for the record state I also don't go "after you"..not any more and not for a long time. And Dean and I aren't a team.
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:25
Dean wrote:
Dellinger wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
I'm ashamed to say I don't really know exactly what a time signature is, and am barely able to recognize if the music is in an odd time signature (and there's no way I'll know in which time signature it is). However, I remember reading about an interview with Gilmour, or Waters, about the 7/4 time signature on Money. The thing is, the band were suposed to be playing in traditional 4/4, while they put the sax player (Dick Parry) to play in 7/4.
The 7/4 of Money begins in the cash-register sound effect at the start - counting those seven equally space individual sound effects is pretty simple and sets the counting-tempo for the entrance of Water's bass-line which is also in 7/4 - spilt into 3 and 4 - "One Two Three One Two Three Four"... the actual rhythm is in triplets (each quarter note is subdivided into 3 eighth notes), so to sound-out the counting you would go "One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a Four-and-a" etc. Water's actually plays eight notes in each bar, with two notes being played on the second beat, like this:
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
4
and
a
Dum
Da
Da
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
During Parry's solo (and Gilmour's) it changes to common time.
Enlightening!
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:28
The Bearded Bard wrote:
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
Personally I could give a rat's ass about the time signature. Is the music any damn good?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:32
dtguitarfan wrote:
I had no idea it was such a sh*tty genre...
LMAO ... you guys are just hilarious .
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:35
The Bearded Bard wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dellinger wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
I'm ashamed to say I don't really know exactly what a time signature is, and am barely able to recognize if the music is in an odd time signature (and there's no way I'll know in which time signature it is). However, I remember reading about an interview with Gilmour, or Waters, about the 7/4 time signature on Money. The thing is, the band were suposed to be playing in traditional 4/4, while they put the sax player (Dick Parry) to play in 7/4.
The 7/4 of Money begins in the cash-register sound effect at the start - counting those seven equally space individual sound effects is pretty simple and sets the counting-tempo for the entrance of Water's bass-line which is also in 7/4 - spilt into 3 and 4 - "One Two Three One Two Three Four"... the actual rhythm is in triplets (each quarter note is subdivided into 3 eighth notes), so to sound-out the counting you would go "One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a Four-and-a" etc. Water's actually plays eight notes in each bar, with two notes being played on the second beat, like this:
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
4
and
a
Dum
Da
Da
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
During Parry's solo (and Gilmour's) it changes to common time.
Enlightening!
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
Actually, I think I know. Clap or tap or stomp to 'Money' and figure it out by using this rule of thumb: every clap or whatnot is a quarter-note. For more ease, play the bass riff in 4/4, clap to it, then play it in the original meter, use the rule of thumb, and there you got it! It's in 7/8. So, whoever tells you it's in 7/4, then it's some person who really likes fancy stuff and enjoys the idea of confusing himself .
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:35
Slartibartfast wrote:
The Bearded Bard wrote:
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
Personally I could give a rat's ass about the time signature. Is the music any damn good?
I'm just curioius. And yes, it is
-------------
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:38
Slartibartfast wrote:
The Bearded Bard wrote:
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
Personally I could give a rat's ass about the time signature. Is the music any damn good?
See, why would you say that? Do you have any idea how frigging the intro to 'Firth of Fifth' is?
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:39
Dayvenkirq wrote:
The Bearded Bard wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dellinger wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
I'm ashamed to say I don't really know exactly what a time signature is, and am barely able to recognize if the music is in an odd time signature (and there's no way I'll know in which time signature it is). However, I remember reading about an interview with Gilmour, or Waters, about the 7/4 time signature on Money. The thing is, the band were suposed to be playing in traditional 4/4, while they put the sax player (Dick Parry) to play in 7/4.
The 7/4 of Money begins in the cash-register sound effect at the start - counting those seven equally space individual sound effects is pretty simple and sets the counting-tempo for the entrance of Water's bass-line which is also in 7/4 - spilt into 3 and 4 - "One Two Three One Two Three Four"... the actual rhythm is in triplets (each quarter note is subdivided into 3 eighth notes), so to sound-out the counting you would go "One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a Four-and-a" etc. Water's actually plays eight notes in each bar, with two notes being played on the second beat, like this:
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
4
and
a
Dum
Da
Da
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
During Parry's solo (and Gilmour's) it changes to common time.
Enlightening!
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
Actually, I think I know. Clap or tap or stomp to 'Money' and figure it out by using this rule of thumb: every clap or whatnot is a quarter-note. For more ease, play the bass riff in 4/4, clap to it, then play it in the original meter, use the rule of thumb, and there you got it! It's in 7/8. So, whoever tells you it's in 7/4, then it's some person who really likes fancy stuff and enjoys the idea of confusing himself .
But I don't play bass
So what are you really saying, it's the same?
-------------
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 15:45
dtguitarfan wrote:
What is your definition of the word "progressive", when it's used in the phrase "progressive rock"? I've often heard people say "this band is progressive" or "this band is NOT progressive" and I start wondering if we're talking about the same thing.... I'll give my definition after a few people have answered but I'm just curious to see what people say.
Besides, there's a whole page on this site dedicated to this question. And when you read the replies of others to your question, it is not to say that prog-rock is EVERYTHING, right?
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 19:20
The Bearded Bard wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
The Bearded Bard wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dellinger wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
lazland wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
What if I ask in 7/4? ;-)
Then you will start a discussion about how some players, notably Nick Mason, are incapable of playing in such a time.
But isn't Money in 7/4?
^^^^ Take note, dtguitarfan, this is what you call 'prog pedancy'
As for my definition of prog. Mental.
I'm ashamed to say I don't really know exactly what a time signature is, and am barely able to recognize if the music is in an odd time signature (and there's no way I'll know in which time signature it is). However, I remember reading about an interview with Gilmour, or Waters, about the 7/4 time signature on Money. The thing is, the band were suposed to be playing in traditional 4/4, while they put the sax player (Dick Parry) to play in 7/4.
The 7/4 of Money begins in the cash-register sound effect at the start - counting those seven equally space individual sound effects is pretty simple and sets the counting-tempo for the entrance of Water's bass-line which is also in 7/4 - spilt into 3 and 4 - "One Two Three One Two Three Four"... the actual rhythm is in triplets (each quarter note is subdivided into 3 eighth notes), so to sound-out the counting you would go "One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a One-and-a Two-and-a Three-and-a Four-and-a" etc. Water's actually plays eight notes in each bar, with two notes being played on the second beat, like this:
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
1
and
a
2
and
a
3
and
a
4
and
a
Dum
Da
Da
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
Dum
During Parry's solo (and Gilmour's) it changes to common time.
Enlightening!
But wat's the difference between 7/4 and 7/8? I mean, how can you hear the difference?
Actually, I think I know. Clap or tap or stomp to 'Money' and figure it out by using this rule of thumb: every clap or whatnot is a quarter-note. For more ease, play the bass riff in 4/4, clap to it, then play it in the original meter, use the rule of thumb, and there you got it! It's in 7/8. So, whoever tells you it's in 7/4, then it's some person who really likes fancy stuff and enjoys the idea of confusing himself .
But I don't play bass
So what are you really saying, it's the same?
Simple answer is it depends.
The top number tells you the number of beats in the bar, and in both cases there would be "7", the bottom number tells you what type of note to count "4" is crotchets (quarter-notes) and "8" is quavers (eighth-notes) - so from purely a listening point of view they are the same - 7 beats in a bar. If all else were equal and one was played at twice the tempo as the other to maintain the number of beats per minute as equal then you would not tell the difference.
What distinguishes 7/4 from 7/8 is down to how each bar is phrased and accented and which time signature can be uses to notate the tune clearest on a musical score. This basically adds up to how it feels - Money feels like it is 4/4 time with a missing eighth note rather than 6/8 time with an extra one... this feeling is heightened in the solo's when the time signature changes to 4/4 time - even though the beats-per-minute doesn't change it feels like those sections are going at a faster tempo because the number of quarter-notes in a bar has almost halved (ie the bars have gotten shorter so we have more bars-per-minute) - this apparent change of pace would not happen if it went from 7/8 to 4/4 for example since the number of quarter-notes in 7/8 is 3½.
To hear this you have to listen to what Mason is playing beneath Water's bass-line and Gilmour's solo and where he hits kick-drum and snare in each bar. You will notice that he doesn't suddenly start drumming at twice the tempo during the solo, even though the song appears to speed up considerably at that point, he just shifts where he accents within the bar.
The other reason why people say it is 7/4 and not 7/8 is that placement of the second "Da" in Water's bass-line (the one on the third tripletted eighth note in the second beat) ... in 7/8 time using Andrey's method of clapping quarter-notes that "Da" hangs between claps rather than on one.
------------- What?
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 19:33
Dean wrote:
Simple answer is it depends.
The top number tells you the number of beats in the bar, and in both cases there would be "7", the bottom number tells you what type of note to count "4" is crotchets (quarter-notes) and "8" is quavers (eighth-notes) - so from purely a listening point of view they are the same - 7 beats in a bar. If all else were equal and one was played at twice the tempo as the other to maintain the number of beats per minute as equal then you would not tell the difference.
What distinguishes 7/4 from 7/8 is down to how each bar is phrased and accented and which time signature can be uses to notate the tune clearest on a musical score. This basically adds up to how it feels - Money feels like it is 4/4 time with a missing eighth note rather than 6/8 time with an extra one... this feeling is heightened in the solo's when the time signature changes to 4/4 time - even though the beats-per-minute doesn't change it feels like those sections are going at a faster tempo because the number of quarter-notes in a bar has almost halved (ie the bars have gotten shorter so we have more bars-per-minute) - this apparent change of pace would not happen if it went from 7/8 to 4/4 for example since the number of quarter-notes in 7/8 is 3½.
To hear this you have to listen to what Mason is playing beneath Water's bass-line and Gilmour's solo and where he hits kick-drum and snare in each bar. You will notice that he doesn't suddenly start drumming at twice the tempo during the solo, even though the song appears to speed up considerably at that point, he just shifts where he accents within the bar.
The other reason why people say it is 7/4 and not 7/8 is that placement of the second "Da" in Water's bass-line (the one on the third tripletted eighth note in the second beat) ... in 7/8 time using Andrey's method of clapping quarter-notes that "Da" hangs between claps rather than on one.
Maybe you've misread what I meant, and I apologize for the poorness of my previous explanation. What I meant was that I heard this: ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR, ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR. I never even gave any thought to the triplets.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 19:39
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Maybe you've misread what I meant, and I apologize for the poorness of my previous explanation. What I meant was that I heard this: ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR, ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR. I never even gave any thought to the triplets.
that does not add up to 7 so it is neither 7/4 or 7/8
Then maybe you didn't read my post where I pointed out the use of triplets and perhaps "So, whoever tells you it's in 7/4, then it's some person who really likes fancy stuff and enjoys the idea of confusing himself " was not directed at me.
------------- What?
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 19:49
Dean wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Maybe you've misread what I meant, and I apologize for the poorness of my previous explanation. What I meant was that I heard this: ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR, ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR. I never even gave any thought to the triplets.
that does not add up to 7 so it is neither 7/4 or 7/8
Then maybe you didn't read my post where I pointed out the use of triplets and perhaps "So, whoever tells you it's in 7/4, then it's some person who really likes fancy stuff and enjoys the idea of confusing himself " was not directed at me.
NVM. Give me some time.
I think I see what you are saying. "ONE-and-uh-TWO-and-uh-THREE-and-uh-FOUR-and-uh-FIVE-and-uh-SIX-and-uh-SE-ven-uh." Did I get it right?
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 20:01
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Maybe you've misread what I meant, and I apologize for the poorness of my previous explanation. What I meant was that I heard this: ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR, ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR. I never even gave any thought to the triplets.
that does not add up to 7 so it is neither 7/4 or 7/8
Then maybe you didn't read my post where I pointed out the use of triplets and perhaps "So, whoever tells you it's in 7/4, then it's some person who really likes fancy stuff and enjoys the idea of confusing himself " was not directed at me.
NVM. Give me some time.
I think I see what you are saying. "ONE-and-uh-TWO-and-uh-THREE-and-uh-FOUR-and-uh-FIVE-and-uh-SIX-and-uh-SE-ven-uh." Did I get it right?
Yup - the "ONE" "TWO" THREE" "FOUR" are quarter-notes making 7 quarter notes in the bar, or 21 tripletted eighth notes.
And, sorry, in your explanation I missed that you didn't put an "and" after the FOUR and assumed you were only counting one bar not two - I still maintain that 7/8 misses the third note Water's plays in each bar - of course you can play it that way and it would sound "okay", but it would not match what Waters plays. (or what both Waters and Gilmour have said about the track)
/edit - Earlier I said the bar is split 3+4, making it: "ONE-and-uh-TWO-and-uh-THREE-and-uh-ONE-and-uh-TWO-and-uh-THREE-and-uh-FOUR-and-uh"
------------- What?
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 06:37
Thanks for explaining, Dean.
I'm not sure I completely understand it, then again, I'm not a musician and I've got VERY little music theory, so that might be the reason I don't, but I'm definetely wiser after reading your explanation then I was before.
-------------
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 06:44
And what about the 12/8 of Astronomy domine ?
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:05
It started with a question about the definition of Prog-Rock, and it has devolved now into a musical mathematics lesson.
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:09
^Sorry for contributing to that
-------------
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:47
Oh, I don't complain, I'm just an observer. I only hope we could go further and discuss quarter tones in classical Northern Indian music or the various modes in improvised Arabian music (I tried to read a book on this last subject and went lost after 40 pages on a total of 300 pages).
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 09:22
Well most of us are musically illiterate. So are many of the musicians who come up with all this sh*t. So who cares really.Simon Firth who was one of the best rock cooentators lacked formal musical training and admitted to not even knowing exactly what harmony, beat, riff or melody exactly are and used the terms loosley in his work.
-------------
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 09:33
"Music for nerds" is a good definition for prog. It totally justifies what's happening on this thread.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
dtguitarfan wrote:
here?
Think to some now fat bassist-singer.
But I just asked a simple question about something that irks me, but you are not willing to discuss this, that or the other.
that does not add up to 7 so it is neither 7/4 or 7/8