Most of the 70s prog bands weren't "very experimental" or groundbreaking; they tended to ape each other. Does that mean that most of them should not be considered prog? And you haven't answered the question: what about punk bands that actually were very experimental and groundbreaking, and who fused the music with various other genres (e.g. reggae, dub etc.)? Why don't we call them prog too? Why don't we call all the "very experimental" and groundbreaking indie bands today "prog"? I guarantee you, they've broken a great deal more sonic ground than the likes of Porcupine Tree and Tool.

Like with the case of "rock", there really aren't any stylistic elements that define or qualify something as "prog". Like grunge, it's more of a movement than a sound. You only get in by being associated with the fanbase.

Wrongo. From the 70s alone I can name you a lot of 70s prog bands that had their own unique sound and sounded considerably different from another.

Because prog bands didn't fuse genres. :rolleyes:

They're not called prog for reasons I already explained. Being progressive dosen't automatically make you prog. Prog has several characteristics.

Oh how wrong you are.

http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-meta...on-thread.html

No. Its both a movement and a sound. But honestly its more of a sound, because some bands who don't consider themselves prog are still labeled as such. Granted the sound of prog is incredibly broad, but whats so wrong with that? The same could be said for punk and metal.

And prog is considerably larger then grunge. Grunge is limited to 20 or 30 something bands. Prog on the other hand. Progarchives alone has over 3000 bands listed. Yes the qualifications for being prog are broad, but they are there.

Anyway. Velvet Underground are not prog. They were however incredibly progressive and were one of the most important and innovative bands of their time. Anyone who denies that is a fool.

There were, as you say, hundreds or such bands. Of course a lot of them had their own sound. "Most", however, which was the word I used, almost certainly did not.

Congratulations! That was not my own criteria. It was implied/suggested by an earlier poster. Read previous posts first.

This is exactly what I was saying. Being "progressive", whatever that means (anything new and inventive could equally be as "progressive" as anything else), evidently has a meaning of its own as laid out by those in the prog movement/community. It's whether or not their conventional use of the term covers a band that matters, from their standpoint. For the rest of the world, it's whether the general conventional use of the term applies. That's pretty damn hazy grey area.

You don't get what I'm saying. There might be certain elements that are PROTOTYPICALLY prog. You might find bands however that don't particularly embody those prototypical elements yet are included under "prog" all the same for other reasons. Hence why it's more of a culture than a sound. Clearly I was not saying there are no prototypical stylistic elements of the sound. That would be absurd.

That's just my point. It's so broad that the whole catalogue of bands cannot be captured under some set stylistic criteria. The same can be said of punk and metal, as you say. It could equally be argued that, while having prototypical examples, they are more cultures than clearly unambiguously defined sounds.



As for the claim that "bands who don't consider themselves prog are still labeled as such", then this is misleading. In such cases, labeling them as prog would be controversial and disputed. A band only really fit within something if the classification can be generally/conventionally regarded as accurate.

If your idea of prog is Styx and Asia then yes.


I'm sorry. I just thought you were suggesting that prog had no diversity, which couldn't be further from the truth.

People call it "prog" for a reason, and not just to shorten the name. It makes it easier to seperate it from other kinds of rock music that could also be considered progressive.

If you don't think it should be called progressive rock, then call it prog rock.

My point is. Its as if you're trying to say the genre dosen't even exist, which is wrong.

Every band I listed on the prog ed article uses those elements in some way or another.

Just becauses its broad dosen't mean it dosen't exist. And genres do need some kind of criteria. Or else some idiot will start calling every band he hears prog rock.

Does anyone dispute that Motorhead are metal even though Lemmy claims they are not?

If 100% objective criterias for genres exist that would be true. But they don't.

I'm not claiming my criteria to be completely objective. But I worked pretty hard to make the prog ed neutral and reliable.

To clarify, I don't mean to say that criterias need to be 100% objective but that rather, what's important here are conventions. It is conventional and uncontroversial to refer to Motorhead as metal. It fits virtually 99.99%+ of everybody's conceptions of what metal is. It's once we start getting to the point where the line is blurry that we should be careful. Music fans in the main would find it extremely controversial to group Radiohead, for example, under "prog". Putting them under "rock", however, is conventionally acceptable.

To me, conventional usage and application is the most important thing in genre classification.


EDIT: I thought your article was very good and highly informative, btw.

I'd say most of the people who protest against Radiohead's prog classification are alternative rock fans. It would probably disgust them to have a good band like Radiohead classified as prog. I consider them prog rock. Like Mars Volta, they're a prog band which appeals to the alt rock audience.

I think you may have a point there, about the reasons behind the controversy of applying such a term to them being largely politics. Even so, I think it ultimately has to come down to association. And Radiohead have always, I understand, been much more tied in with the indie scene.

Maybe not wrong. More like, as a favourite old professor of mine might say: "not entirely accurate".

For my two cents, The Mars Volta today are leading the forefront for progressive rock as it has come to be known, however progressive music can be found in many different forms. Opeth are enjoying relative success right now, and black metal, itself a progression is getting more popular by the day.

Radiohead are in no way progressive as they are contributing nothing new to music. I've never heard a band like The Mars Volta, and I don't think I'll ever hear another one like it, that in my book definitely earns them the badge progressive. Also before I get flamed for despising Radiohead because I'm an alt rock fan, I basically listen to the big 70's rock and prog bands and some very obscure **** from the heydays of prog as well as the odd black metal and such. And I quite dislike alternative rock as a whole.

Anyways on to the point:

Progressive rock DOES have a chance to re-emerge back into the mainstream but it will take time, and it won't happen overnight, it's not a genre that's run its course and it's not a genre without appeal to a mainstream audience.

So, would you like some substantiation with your baseless Radiohead-bashing?