Prog Debate
 

After reading the very lengthy, yet enlightening "education" thread, I began to wonder....Can prog have the same mainstream appeal that it once had in the 60s & 70s?? It seems difficult to at times improbable to see that happening, even with my boys Coheed at the forefront of the 'movement' with great success.

Just wondering what it would take for it to happen, if at all possible.

It won't ever happen (at least certainly not in the foreseeable future). It isn't any longer a viable commercial format. It has no place in the mainstream.

The Mars Volta are hardly "progressive" imo. I'd call them pretentious (all though to be fair, I love the title track on Frances the Mute).

And I don't think progressive music will become mainstream again in the near future. The only Coheed songs to get any sort of media attention are the ones with pop hooks (A Favor House Atlantic, Running Free, The Suffering, etc.).

As time goes on it seems that music is getting better but it's being appreciated by fewer and fewer people. My post including the Cynic video being a prime example.

Porcupine Tree has hit the top 10 in a few smaller countries. Radiohead is huge everywhere.

I agree with that , i bet with in the next 2 years it will be very mainstream. Its ust going in a cycle like music always dose people are going to get tired of todays mainstream music night now is very pop/dance and trash(y) and very fast.

It will get very tried soon You guys may not think that the Mars Volta is not progressive but its has shares some similarities. and they are very main stream.

what I am sayng is soon the greater public will come to there senses on what they think "good" music is

It's unlikely that it'll ever have the same appeal. Though bands like Porcupine Tree could feasibly appeal to a more mainstream audience.

I think that prog's greatest break into the mainstream would probably be through prog which appeals to alt/indie fans... there are already a fair few bands like this; i.e. Dredg, Radiohead, Mars Volta, Muse (sort of)...

Oh c'mon, for heaven's sake, Radiohead aren't prog!



"Prog" is not some banner term that covers any sort of experimental/arty rock music.

Yes it is. How would you define Prog?

Well under your definition The Velvet Underground are a prog band.

No way would i call Radiohead a prog band, for they aren't at all

Well, they certainly were progressive and they certainly were a rock band. But I guess one of the main connotations of prog is that it tends to be pretty technical, with a lot of classical or jazz influences. I suppose that disqualifies Radiohead and VU. But if krautrock bands like Can or Neu! are progressive rock I don't see why Radiohead, VU, or Stereolab wouldn't fall under the same heading.

But taking all that into account you would also have to include Roxy Music as well & they're about as far removed from prog as you can get.

I don't think it does - I think it depends upon the two factors of A: how the term is conventionally used, and B: whether or not the artists themselves would identify with it.

Prog as I see it is a controversial term, for one, which has generally been used to refer to a specific type of rock band and fanbase rather than clear stylistic elements. It's not the music one makes but rather whether or not they can fall in by association.



ProggyMan, we had a similar discussion before, but about 'rock' itself. It is curious that you can even call Radiohead in the sense of e.g. "In Rainbows" / "Kid A" 'rock' music at all, given that you think 'rock' has stylistic criteria.



But that's the whole point: "progressive" in a musical context doesn't MEAN anything! Does it mean to suggest that non-prog music doesn't contain sonic progression? It's a bullsh*t term! The punk band Television had an awful lot more sonic progression than most of those redundant bland insipid prog bands who really just aped each other. Why don't we call their music progressive?

Progressive means nothing at all. It's one of the stupidest terms ever coined. Even some great pioneers of "prog" such as Fripp rejected the term and thought it a load of nonsense. Let's not apply such a vague, controversial term so freely, but rather on whether a band fits it by association. It's more of a movement, at the end of the day.

I mean, hell... I used to think TOOL were experimental. I then had a look at indie music, and came across stuff so much more wildly experimental than Tool that it wasn't funny. And yet, there'd be absolutely no context in which it would be described as prog. Radiohead are just that - an experimental band.

And this makes them not prog because? Most prog is considered pretentious.

Prog will never be as popular as it was in the early 70s. But I do see a lot of new prog bands appealing to people who never liked 70s prog bands.

Ironically enough, I find that the people who write prog off as being pretentious (aka punk fans) tend to be the most pretentious people on the planet.

Also, I think Radiohead and Roxy Music could both be considered prog, since they have a good deal of the characteristics I listed. I have them listed under Art Rock. Which is the term prog fans use to categorize bands that could be considered prog but don't fall into any of the sub-genres.

VU however I don't consider to be prog. It depends on your definition. But one things for sure. There is a difference between progressive and prog. Just because a band is progressive dosen't make them prog.

Had you said that to a bunch of prog fans in 1975 you would have been lynched.
Roxy Music were hated pretty venomously by fans & journalists who liked prog.

So? That dosen't make them not prog.

You don't have to be technical to be prog either. Pink Floyd are by no means technical. But its pretty clear they are accepted as a prog band.

And for the record, Roxy Music were pretty capable musicians.

1. Fair enough. Although, TMV will always be an indie band with drawn out jam sessions to me.

2. I'm a self-admitted elitist, but hardly pretentious.

Never said they wern't

All i'm saying is that they were totally at odds of the perception of what prog rock is and that they were reviled or loved for it depending on which camp you were in.

No way in hell is VU experimental, and only their image is arty.

I define prog as experimental rock music, or rock music that is fused with other genres. Of course the most famous prog bands are the ones like Genesis, Pink Floyd and Yes from the early to mid 70's movement, but the fact that there are still many good prog bands like TMV, and Porcupine Tree.

Riiiiiiight

Of course every rock n roll band was writing 15 minute songs with monologues and songs with audio feedback , electronic effects and tape loops in them in 1967

I call that ridiculous not arty. Judging by your previous posts on them you agree with me. I think VU tryed to have an arty sound (Probably Andy Warhols idea) and ended up sounding like cave men who got their hands on a violin and a 4-track.

Whether I like them or not is irrelevant.

They were experimental and they innovated a lot of things. It's the nature of experimental music that not everything will work which is why i'm more of a fan of what they spawned rather than what they did. They had more ideas in the few years they were around than most bands do in a lifetime , and although not everything they did musically appeals to me i'll always respect & give credit to them for what they paved.

What exactly did they innovate? Their music was very different from anything else at the time, and used more feedback than anyone else had, but they really weren't very experimental or groundbreaking. Influential, but that has nothing to do with being a prog band.

Most of my record collection ranging from Bowie , through art rock punk & indie to current drone bands

Already explained this to you the feedback was only one issue , I gave you others.

Never said it was I don't know why you're pointing this out to me perhaps you should go back & read and follow the debate rather than trying to point score.

Everything you brought up was them being different from their colleagues, not actual innovation. 15 minute songs have nothing to do with being innovative, same with monologues, and the rest has been there done that.

Name me 5 Rock n Roll bands from 1967 who were combining ALL of those things.

How do you not get it? Being different from the current scene doesn't mean you're innovative.

You said people had done it before.

I'm just asking which rock n roll bands has incorporated those things into rock music before them.

Well, I looked up some of their history and they used alternate tunings on their instruments, and a bunch of other stuff I didn't know about. So I concede that they were innovative.

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?