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

"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.

Hello again Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra (I love that name!) :beer:
I'm an olde farte (50) and a big fan of Progressive Rock as well as many other genres. I had the honor of living and studying with Robert Fripp in 1985 and we spoke in depth many times on this.

Progressive was meant to be like the compositions of modern Classical composers, in that the music evolved from Point A to Point B, without the stereotypical AABA etc. function, without the rules of commercial, traditional musics.

The word Rock was attached to it because of the sound, the gear, possibly the attitude attached.

Mahavishnu Orchestra would be termed Jazz Rock Fusion but I'm not sure it is any different other than adding more jazz elements . . . it is certainly very Progressive.

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.

I would add that all these 'labels' are very plastic in that they change per generation.
For instance R&B began as a form of the delta blues, but instead of accompanying yourself on say guitar ala Son House, you had a rhythm player, hence Rythm AND Blues, then it became a form of Soul music, and now we see it as a form of Rap/HipHop today.

Somebody should reattach the 'Blues' to today's R&B mix and have a HipHop Delta thing. I've recorded stuff that gets close to this, but I'm not well versed enough in today's commercial culture to get it right.

I like the hip-hop Delta ideal..maybe if you added a little Louisiana Cajun to it? :p:

I remember when "Classical Rock" (not classic) was just a label to categorize the band YES.

"Opera Rock" - Queen.

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

...Definitely not, although I have pondered this question many times, and it is discussed ad nauseam over on forums at prog archives, and they seem to have taken this approach on their site as now almost every technical band is open to be reviewed over there.

If you put the question in reverse (if that's relevant, maybe not), it would be: can non-technicial music be progressive, and I think to the answer to that question is yes. As an example, take many of the tracks from Tull's "Heavy Horses," which I do take to be progressive rock: "Moth's" & "One Brown Mouse" are maybe the best examples.

What about The Allman Brothers? Im not saying they are or were progressive, but they were arguably the most technical blues based band. Their music, in particularly their live music, consisted of soloing from all instruments, great guitar and drum solos, organ solos, bass solos. Just about everyone in the band would do some soloing. Their music also incorporated elements of jazz. For example, take the song in memeory of elizabeth reed, it was a great jazzy dedication to miles davis. could they be considered progressive in any way? And even in modern times they are still incorporating jazz and even eastern indian music. Derek Trucks is a brilliant guitarist. Trucks developed a love of Pakistani and East Indian qawwali music, and was moved by the sound of artists like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, prompting him to study at the Ali Akbar College of Music in San Rafael, California which is where he learned to play the sarod, leaving lingering strains of Indian music in his guitar work.

Progressive rock songs also often have extended instrumental passages, marrying the classical solo tradition with the improvisational traditions of jazz and psychedelic rock. All of these tend to add length to progressive rock songs, which may last longer than twenty minutes. I think The Allman Brothers certainly match this description.

In his 2004 article “Making Sense of Rock’s Tonal Systems,” Walter Everett identifies six tonal systems with nine separate classifications for rock music. For blues-based rock music, Everett describes the tonal system as follows: “minor-pentatonic-inflected major-mode systems. Common-practice harmonic and voice-leading behaviors not always emphasized at the surface, but may be articulated at deeper levels and/or in the accompaniment.” The music of the Allman Brothers also conforms to another of Everett’s systems, “Major-mode systems, or modal systems, with mixture from modal scale degrees. Common-practice harmonic and voice-leading behaviors would be common but not necessary.”

It is important to emphasize that the Allman Brothers Band was not just a blues-rock group. Although their original music embodies the spirit of the blues, it certainly does not adhere strictly to its formal rules. Their music also contains elements of jazz and classical music that were not especially common to rock, at least in America at that time. Butch Trucks called the musical blending that took place an “honest, sincere melding of all those different backgrounds with people that could really play.”

I think prog rock bands have to push the format some like experiment with time signatures or for songs to contain musical themes other than verse, refrain and bridge in standard order. Making very long songs constructed more like classical pieces is surely a way to play with the format. Long ago, popular music more or less became streamlined to something with a 4/4 time signature containing very predictable verses and refrains. To me, progressive rock represents a want to do something more and to explore the possibility that music can be (more) beautiful in other shapes and forms. Many groups that are not necessarily considered prog rock do this, but genres are fleeting things and I still feel that's at the core of it.

There are many ways to peel that onion. Gentle Giant sometimes included baroque instrumentation and a-capellas into their songs. Jethro Tull made an entire album containing a single song (though split between two sides of the LP) lasting three quarters of an hour, even if it was a bit of a joke. An example of an album which is not particularly skillfull instrumentally but which definetly experiments and is generally considered a prog rock classic is Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom.

What makes this prog rock?

One of the problems is that in order to convey what a particular band's style of music is then it is only natural to narrow the genre parameters and use 'Progressive' as a catch all.

I do this myself when I am trying to describe a band that plays Metal or Rock but doesn't follow a set pattern of verse/chorus or just rely on straight riffs. Clearly a band like Porcupine Tree doesn't sound anything like Feeder for example even though they use the same basic instruments so using 'Prog' as a term suggests that the band (Porcupine Tree) are approaching their music in a completely different way but they are not always 'progressive' regarding the stereotypical sound associated with experimental bands of the 70's, yet they are certainly different enough to not be just another formulaic rock band.

This is a big problem and gets many genre fans knickers in a twist because if you describe a band as progressive even if they stick to a relatively rigid formula then they are NOT progressive but I think it is important to emphasise that many bands do sound different and use many moods and textures in their music and may well appeal to a wider base of music fans and usually you have to use the word Progressive in order to convey that.

I do think that purely technical rock/metal music is another form altogether from progressive music but in the cold light of day 'progressive music' surely means progression of a particular state and if time signatures and musical scales are stretched then it is deserving of the term but I cannot acquiesce to this line of thought either.

Critics and fans alike need labels to describe the music that they are listening to but one persons interpretation of music is not always what someone else agrees upon.

No. But I often see people's confusion about this in metal, especially death metal. People call Death, Cynic, and Atheist progressive death metal when in reality they're just technical. The only Death album that has slight progressive influences is The Sound Of Perseverance. But even then, it's not progressive.

Im waiting for someone to look into my comment about The Allman Brothers, someone who knows their music.

I seen your comment a couple of times, and the only conclusion is that Allman Brothers more than likely did play prog music with certain songs they wrote (when) writing albums, as so is the same for most all other rock bands as well.

Greg Allman is the Brother Ive personally always liked in the Allman Brothers "Mid Night Rider", "I'm No Angel". Theres a couple more solo songs I like of Greg Allman in the 80s. Just cant think of them at the moment.

Well, think about the term progressive itself. It's used to denote a way of actively thinking outside of established parameters and formulas. in music, as well as in other facets of art and culture, we recognize a style or genre when we see certain recurrent themes creating a criteria for its designation. As it usually happens, someone progressively sets the bar and others follow adhering to the formula that's been established.

The case of progressive rock seems to bee that there are innovators and there are duplicators within the genre, but as a whole, the genre of progressive rock tends to be a platform for greater musical creativity, because it highlights intellectual and artistic concept, innovation and musicianship over following a formula, which is very simple to follow and be prolific with.

Well the Allman Brothers were certainly one of the most technical blues based bands. I think theyre pretty underrated, mostly to the youth of today. Every kid knows led zeppelin, but not many know of the allman brothers. And the allman brothers were better in my opinion.

Unfortunately I beg to differ... :(

theres no doubt that zeppelin is more known to kids today. The Allman Brothers were more technical in their approach to writing music. sure, Jimmy Page would bust out some fast solos, but that doesnt make them more technical. The Allmans used more complex time signatures. They incorporated Jazz and Classical influences in their music. Zeppelin was more pop, especially with songs like whole lotta love and dazed and confused. Not to mention they plagiarized those songs, but thats another story.

With that said, one could argue that Zeppelin was more 'progressive' even if blatant song thieves. Allmans might be more technical but would be more dry, and blatant in their output. Zeppelin experimented in a myriad of unconventional instruments in recording, extended technique, etc.

Songs like Kashmir, No Quarter, etc. prove that the band was much more about studio depth, and songwriting, than actual chord technique. Zep were exceptionally proficient in studio, along with technical, which really set them apart from most mainstream bands from the 1970s, even good ones, that play very complex music by today's standards, but sound much older. I imagine for their time, Zeppelin sounded fairly future looking.

Which brings us to the original point, it's kind of unfair how prog is blandly stereotyped as anything that's complex.

Personally, and I know that I may contradict popular opinion, I feel progressive rock should be largely composed and played by a rock band or at least contain some rock instrumentation. I would be hesitant to call a band who only improvised on wind instruments rock anything. I do realize there are times when such bands can play in a way which still makes them sort of rock-y (Apocalyptica comes to mind), but when they don't, I am particularly hesitant to call it prog rock. On that note, I personally am a bit hesitant to call Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom (mentioned in my previous post) prog rock. It's certainly avantgarde and progressive in a sense, but where's the rock?

Right, but one could argue that many prog bands are 50% or more Jazz, or classical than rock. I mean, what makes them particularly rock, anyway?

Youre right, The Allmans were more technical and more traditional, while zepp were more experimental. But you cant blame a band for sticking to their roots. And zepp deserves credit for being experimental. But while The Allmans were more traditional, they were also a pioneering band of southern rock. They had a pretty original sound.

I was trying to steer away from the Allmans vs Zep discussion because it has relatively nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Well the topic is "should rock be considered prog just because it is technical?" And my question was "could the Allmans be considered prog because they are technical?" It somewhat fits into the topic. But yes, the Zepp vs Allmans is off topic. But it was a sub-topic of something that was on topic. :laughing:

To me, at it's simplest, rock music means music played by a rock band which basically means played by someone doing something like electric guitar, a drum kit, bass guitar and perhaps someone on keyboard. If these guys play jazz, you call it jazz rock or fusion. If they are experimental in some way, you may call it symphonic rock or art rock or what have you.

That's the jist of it the way I see it .. (and again also why I'm hesitant to accept Rock Bottom as prog "rock")

I don't consider either the Allmans or Led Zep to be Progressive Rock . . . . King Crimson and Jethro Tull are Progressive Rock.

Progressive Rock has always been colored with odd time signatures, of which both Crimson & Tull are masters.

Would that bar Gentle Giant, as well?

No, Gentle Giant was a rock band. They played their songs with guitar, drums, bass guitar, keyboards. Perhaps they were not all present at the same time, but I never wrote anything about that, did I? ;)

edit :

I'm in no way strict about this. For example, I definetly consider ELP a rock band despite the general lack of guitar. To be perfectly honest, I can accept Rock Bottom as prog too as soon as you get past the opener. I just don't see what's "rock" about a person playing the piano and singing something which has just about no rock vibe. I can accept that rock bands sometimes play songs that are not rock songs.

um, song cycles and a recurring theme also?

I heard that ELP recruited mitch mitchell as the drummer, and he showed up to jam with body guards and an arsenal of weaapons haha. I also heard that it was planned for Hendrix to join the group and they would be called HELP, but he died before it could happen

The Phantom of the Opera Musical has recurring themes. Is that prog rock? What about classical music? Is that prog rock? :p:

Phantom of the Opera, if it was performed solely by one band, and not sung by several singers backed by an orchestra and attached to a musical, would be "prog"

prog takes a lot from classical, neways

Depending on the band, I generally agree with you. If it's two recorders and a violin to someone singing, then I don't agree. If it's played by someone approaching something more like a rock band, then it could be prog.

I don't know, though. Gentle Giant often gets so sucked into it's European folk mode that it feels more a modern bard song, than rock itself. One could argue a large portion of their discography has very little of rock, and blues in it.

I think prog is any music promoted to a singularly rock audience in order to open their minds of the potentials of rock. Sometimes it resembles classical more, sometimes it's nothing more than straight jazz fusion. In the end, however, the thing that really distinguishes it is the target audience, and the means to appeal to them.

With that said, I don't think unless prog introduces some element the listener isn't used to from mainstream rock, then it really isn't prog. Coheed and Cambria is my example. They may have long song structures, and I'm not sure or not, but they may even have themes. But their music stays strict within 70s Rush/Zeppelin territory, and even by that seems quite watered down, and pandering. Definitely not prog.

Interesting point, classical music eventually evolved to non systematic composition and like Mozart and Beethoven (to name the obvious) the music became progressive in the fact that it didn't rely on recurring themes or a compositional organizational structure. Earlier Crimson and middle Tull also have this non-structure as well. The need to have a 'song' on an album was too great it seems, and as with any species the need to survive took precedent.

I like Jethro Tull, but would find them a piss poor example of 'Prog Rock'. There were some medieval under tones, and some strong themeology. Even albums with prolonged song structures. Generally, however, they're really sort of classic rock with a few medieval undertones. They stayed very strictly in 'safe territory' their career.

When I think of something that's effectively prog I think of something like 'Samla Mammas Manna'. Very dense, creative, compositions. Unique aesthetic. Brilliantly virtuoso. Yet, to the point of alienating any mainstream appeal. Prog can be good prog, and mainstream. Yet, I think it should still have some tendencies to introduce to people a sound which redefines the possibilities of rock.

Tull is brilliant, extremely well written rock, but doesn't really do that for me.

LOL . . . hysterical
crapBut hey to each their own!

Try
this on for progressive size . . .

I agree with Tull being a bad example for progressive. Rush is the ultimate and perfect example of progressive rock in my opinion.

I never was a fan of Jethro Tull either, but its cool if others are.

In all fairness, Samla very much intends the humor in their approach. I find that refreshing. Plus, from a technical level, they're far superior to Jethro Tull. Just because the intended humor is lost on you, doesn't mean you need to overlook their virtuosity.

Now, I LIKE Jethro Tull a lot. But don't honestly feel they're that progressive. In fact, I'd say they're quite conservative. I mean, take out the orchestration on albums, and the flute playing, and it's just straight arena rock.

I saw a cable show of a recent concert from Rush, and man Geddy Lee was just fantastic, Pert was great, Lifeson too loud and distorted but ok.

Post a good example, because I can't find one.