|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 306
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) | |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
![]() Quote:
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?
__________________
Something Completely Different |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|