Music Banter - Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Prog & Psychedelic Rock (https://www.musicbanter.com/prog-psychedelic-rock/)

- - Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical? (https://www.musicbanter.com/prog-psychedelic-rock/58686-should-rock-considered-prog-just-because-its-technical.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1118914)

edit :

I think the closest you get to finding characteristics that define a band as being prog is that at some point, they've meddled with nontraditional time signatures. That's just about something all prog rockers do, although that trait is of course not unique to prog rock.

I think you hit it perfectly right in the ballpark here tore, concerning progressive rock.

I have to agree as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1120494)

That was sort of my point. None of the points you mention are unique to prog rock. Fantasy elements are abound in metal, classical music for example has very long songs, folk rockers have been playing around with old instruments, concept albums can be found in most genres .. and theatrical performances, although it's not something I think of as typical of prog, is also found in other genres.

The point is that a band is prog when it falls within a certain range of possible combinations of certain musical characteristics. That's how useless genres are sometimes. You telling me that a band needs to possess "some elements" in order to be prog only confirms what I wrote.

I feel that the characteristics I have set out are some of the things that people like Roine Stolt, phideaux xavier, Andy Tillison and others like Steven Wilson and Michael Akerfeldt amongst others, are pushing to ensure that the prog genre is a definable music genre. They have helped to make the prog scene what it is today, with it's own monthly magazine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericbfg (Post 1120583)

For much of the prog I listen to, those elements are not really very good descriptors at all. Going by that list, Mighty Rhapsody is probably more prog than most of the prog I listen to!

Something that further complicates any want to rigidly define a genre like prog rock as anything is that once a band is considered prog, that label is also generally applied to much of that band's output, often even when it doesn't contain those elements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1120646)

That's very true, and that's why I don't like applying a specific genre to bands: I prefer applying it to albums, since bands tend to change their sound a lot in the prog scene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra (Post 1106005)

"Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?"

Is a question I, as a prog fan, ask myself every once in awhile. Seems that's really all prog tends to seem to be considered in this day, and age. Even if early precursors like Pink Floyd weren't necessarily. However, it makes one wonder, what exactly makes a band like Dream Theather or Coheed and Cambria really prog? They both profit heavily from assembling extensively established pieces of music, and simply enhancing the solos.

Then again, if that's the case, why isn't Megadeth prog? Or why is it when the formula is truly bent in a non-rock direction are things labelled as Avant-garde? I mean would say, Mr.Bungle, be considered a prog band in the 70s even if considered an avant-garde band of today? Mixing Jazz, Carnival, rock, etc has been predominately territory of bands like King Crimson since their inception. What exactly happened in the 80s that has earned this distinct segregation? Does the fact that something like David Bowie even bar itself from being prog just because of simple structures even if there's often an extensive usage of atypical not typically instrumentation, and studio technique?

Christ... I'm getting too Socratic. At any rate, my point is, it was my understanding that prog was intended to be rock breaking into more sophisticated realms. Often utilizing elements of it's sister jazz-fusion and classical(which technically had an affair with classical since it's start).

Why is it it seems that things are considered prog just because they are technical even if they bear traits of little to no experimentation? I mean, what distinctly makes something progressive is prog rock is no longer allowed it's license to take risks?

Many things make up what is prog. Lets list a few.

Prog almost always have some of the following elements
1. Complex song structure.
2. Changing rhythm.
3. Exploring new ground in sound and styles.
4. Musicians mostly way above average.
5. Soloing and/or instrumental parts are common.
6. Songs often much longer than pop/mainstream songs.
7. Concept albums are common.
8. Music is made to make the best music and for how well it sells.
9. Melodies mostly not as "easy" as mainstream melodies.
10. Try to make music for the future/breaking new grounds and not for what is most apealing today.
11. Blending genres is often a trademark of prog.
12. Using not common instruments are normal.

These days, everything seems to be progressive, from Iron Maiden to modern indie bands. Music is also described as having 'progressive elements' or being 'prog-related'.

In my view, 'progressive', in the rock music context, is a noun, rather than a verb, to describe a musical style (which originally seemed to progress beyond the singer, guitars and drums format). Rick Wakeman said progressive rock, paradoxically, does not progress.

Subjective. If its not technical then what is progressive about it?

I think people will just have to come to terms with the fact that a label does not have to have a strict definition to be useful. As long as it can point people in the general direction of understanding, then it's a practical way to communicate. For example, as long as me and Necromancer both agree that Rush and Yes are prog bands, then we can communicate about that by using the word prog, even if our personal definitions differ on the fringes. Progressive rock is just not a very well defined genre and it probably never will be.

When it comes to very early prog rock, basically before people started imitating the greats, I pretty much feel like this; In the late 60s and into the early 70s, there was a sort of Cambrian Explosion, only in rock music. Rock diversified into a wealth of new shapes and forms, including many which would not be able to survive for very long in a capitalistic music market. I think most of those early prog bands were not concerned with sounding like other bands or like eachother. They wanted to sound unique and do their own thing and they did that by taking rock to new places. Gentle Giant and ELP f.ex sound wildly different. When the same label was finally applied to all these bands, it was applied to them because they were taking rock into new places, because they were trying to be different. So taking that into consideration, how are you supposed to define them by the things that made them alike so that it makes sense?

I always thought progressive simply meant the song progressed (not that the genre was progressive), using similar composition to classical music over pop songs. So once the instrumentals changed then they would never revert back to exactly the same combination of rhythm/structure/notes as before, so no chorus etc. While the rock referred to being guitar based.

But the first progressive band were always associated with a certain style (psychadelic) so that's sort of stuck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face (Post 1259323)

I think you can come up with a great personal definition of what you think makes progressive rock, but there's no real authority out there to govern what the term means or how to use it. The label is generously applied to a lot of music which is not very well described by how you just defined it.

A quick example can be the song "Dinosaur" by King Crimson. Looking at the song's wikipedia page, it says the genre is Progressive Rock. If you look at discogs which is a release database, the entry for the album that the song is on has Art Rock and Prog Rock as styles. It seems the general consensus is that it's a prog rock song.

Yet, when you listen to it, it is pretty much structured as a pop song with verses and very catchy, recurring refrains.

If you discuss music with prog enthusiasts, you will always discuss a lot of music which may not sound very progressive as if it is. And who's to tell them it isn't? Or is it?