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

Unknown Soldier · 09-24-2011, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

"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?

Good thread but I`m still on my first tea of the morning so my brains not functioning. But totally agree with you about bands that play technical being referred to as prog and should they or shouldn`t they??? I think the debate really needs to be started by defining what prog actually is and how that relates to current day prog bands. For example, taking two obvious prog focal points from the 1970s Yes and Peter Gabriel era Genesis and then comparing them to their modern day counterparts the Mars Volta and Spocks Brain there is enough of a link to compare the two generations.........but my line of thought there is very old school, as in if modern prog doesn`t have influences from bands such as Yes and King Crimson etc its not really prog!

Another viewpoint, is that any band just due to the complexity of their music such as original sounding acts such as Mr.Bungle or Primus could also be called prog, or even Canadian technical death metal band Gorguts who have as I`m concerned have put out some of the most technical pieces of music.

As far as bands as Dream Theater go, I`d say yer as they basically sound like a metal based version of Kansas.

Necromancer · 09-24-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

My line of thought there is very old school, as in if modern prog doesn`t have influences from bands such as Yes and King Crimson etc its not really prog!
As far as bands as Dream Theater go, I`d say yer as they basically sound like a metal based version of Kansas.

I think that true (core) progressive rock hit/reached its pinnacle in the 70s.

Progressive Metal is the more current sub-genre that is most popular today. And the genre I personally categorize prior bands like Queensrÿche, and Dream Theater.

Progressive Metal splinters off into Fusion genres like Technical death metal, mathcore, and so on.

I'm not very familiar with the more popular metal sub-genres and most current metal bands of the day. But I do know that progressive metal is very popular at the current time.