Rainard Jalen

It’s not laughable in and of itself. It only becomes laughable once they start claiming that it’s somehow better art to something else that actually is original, but just happens not to be at all “progressive”. It’s that, to be honest, which I find irritating: valuing all music based merely on its compositional sophistication, even if it contains no new ideas. There’s more to art than that, and such attitudes just seem to miss the point. Those people, while they have all the right to like one type of music more than another, are totally wrong to scorn other genres, and so baselessly too.

Well, they still took those ideas and applied their own personality to them, fashioning out of them something that was quite idiosyncratically “Nirvana”… and of course Kurt was a better melodist than all the others. But point taken, and I agree with your general gist: it’s alright to like a band for their sound, and from a personal standpoint that is ultimately all that matters, beyond a doubt. It’s when people start getting evangelical about it that the trouble starts.

boo boo

I don't think you get it. Progressive rock is not just rock music that is progressive, if this was true that would make Talking Heads prog (who are not).

Progressive rock is defined by a criteria I have alrady explained, sure its a broad term, but that goes with most genres. Point is progressive and "prog" is not the same, prog is not just the general act of being progressive it actually is a genre with its own classfications. While there are many prog bands with an original sound, theres nothing that makes Flower Kings less of a prog band, less progressive sure, but they fit the criteria of a prog band and so thats what they are.

So once again the two words are not mutually exclusive.

Bjork = Progressive but not prog.
Dream Theater = Not progressive and unfortunately prog.

See this is the problem. I don't see that many prog fans being this way. I think any prog fan thats not a complete moron should know that every genre is different and isn't meant to function the same way.

I mean the only proggie here who ever acts like you described was Don, but he thinks all prog thats not prog metal (which is all he ever listens to) is crap. Sad excuse of a proggie he was. And thank god he's not around anymore.

Comus can be that way too, but I know he likes The Ramones so he can't be that closed minded.

I think you confuse originality with creativity, these terms are also not mutually exclusive. You can be un-original and still be creative.

Yeah.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Rainard Jalen

I meant it in the sense of "prog" and the "criteria of a prog band". Plus, I was only trying to capture the types of sentences you find evangelical proggies using: "Band X, load of piffle. Not progressive at all."

Well I'm just referring to the types who do. Of course not all are like that, just like not all indie fans are Pitchfork twonks.

If you wanna take "creative" in its literal sense then yeah, fine, but to me that's just special pleading. Creative, in an artistic context, is conventionally interpreted as innovation and originality.

ProggyMan

Like boo boo said, Prog is not progressive in the sense of originality/innovation, it might have been originally, but I think that at the moment Prog means progression inside of a song itself. The majority of prog is based around some sort of progression inside of a song.

Rainard Jalen

But it does generally include substantial compositional sophistication. And the sorts of fans I refer to think this is a prerequisite of music having any value.