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

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 09-24-2011, 02:57 AM

"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?

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.

SIRIUSB · 09-24-2011, 07:38 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?

Hello again Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra (I love that name!)

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.

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.

SIRIUSB · 09-24-2011, 09:47 AM

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.

Necromancer · 09-24-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIRIUSB

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?

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

"Opera Rock" - Queen.

RMR · 10-21-2011, 07:22 PM

"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.

blastingas10 · 10-25-2011, 03:37 PM

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.”

Guybrush · 10-25-2011, 03:55 PM

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?

jackhammer · 10-25-2011, 04:53 PM

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.

10-21-2011, 07:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
RMR Front to Back Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 360	"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. __________________ RMR My music reivew site: RMR Music Reviews

10-25-2011, 03:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	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.” Last edited by blastingas10; 10-25-2011 at 04:13 PM.

10-25-2011, 03:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	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? __________________ Something Completely Different

10-25-2011, 04:53 PM	#10 (permalink)
jackhammer Ba and Be. Join Date: May 2007 Location: This Is England Posts: 17,331	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. __________________ It be my music and film collection. “A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”

09-24-2011, 09:47 AM	#5 (permalink)
SIRIUSB Luciferian Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 278	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.