PublicImage wrote:'Progressive rock' is a horrible term. It is entirely subjective, and lots of people seem to think that what makes music progressive is innovative studio trickery rather than progressive song structures, which I completely disagree with. For instance, Pink Floyd's song structures very rarely moved from the typical ABABA (and perhaps the occasional C) style format, and only really have about five songs which I would consider progressive. For that reason, I do not think it would be fair to call them a progressive rock band, because, to put it simply, their music on the whole is not progressive. It was innovative, certainly, and there is little doubt that they influenced so many bands and producers, but their actual music was very rarely progressive. They did more cheesy-80s-production style songs than they did prog songs, but that doesn't make them primarily an '80s' band, does it?
If the actual music is not progressive (i. e. it does not have any modulation, rhythmic variations, different vocal melody in each verse, through-composed chord structure), then I think it is unjustified to class a band as progressive. Otherwise, Eminem would be classed as prog, as mossy said in that oversized "Are Pink Floyd a prog band?" thread, because he revolutionised his genre as much as Pink Floyd did to 'rock' music.
Yup - you are in rare form here PI - i agree with what you say about Pink Floyd here. at the end of the day labeling a band in this way is really just for marketing purposes.
its all about connotative versus denotative meanings though. Pink Floyd should be filed under pop, but most people wouldn't look for the band there in a cd store, and most people who buy what is referred to commonly as pop would be unlikely to buy Pink Floyd.
there is the status element too. "oh i listen to mostly pop music" just doesn't sound as cool as "oh i listen to progressive rock"
Yup, he's a rare gem, alright
But please add to the tab that it's not only the structure that makes songs progressive. As it was similarly said, it also comes from heart. I see Roger is a materialist, but you know what they say - you gotta put your heart into what you're doing. Believe me, it's true coz I've experienced it.
But please add to the tab that it's not only the structure that makes songs progressive. As it was similarly said, it also comes from heart. I see Roger is a materialist, but you know what they say - you gotta put your heart into what you're doing. Believe me, it's true coz I've experienced it.
Okay, so what does make a piece of music progressive?
But please add to the tab that it's not only the structure that makes songs progressive. As it was similarly said, it also comes from heart. I see Roger is a materialist, but you know what they say - you gotta put your heart into what you're doing. Believe me, it's true coz I've experienced it.
Okay, so what does make a piece of music progressive?
By definition it is anything that advances the form. Moves it forward. Although if you try to advance it too much it ends up losing all its feeling and becomes an exercise. A thing like Passion Play by Jethro Tull may be trying too hard to be progressive and ends up slightly annoying. Heavy Horses is a more successful attempt in my opinion. I like music that transcends labels. A band like Can might be called progressive but it is also at times minimal and regressive. (which I like)
Idisaffect wrote:By definition it is anything that advances the form. Moves it forward. Although if you try to advance it too much it ends up losing all its feeling and becomes an exercise.
That's the standard definition of "ANYTHING progressive". However a sort of modern (1990's) retcon definition of 'Progressive Rock' as a GENRE would be that it is rock music with multiple "chord progressions" on each indiviual piece. That would be the basic trait of the genre, but not the only one. Otherwise the term would be obsolete because anything that at some moment of history sounded NEW could be fit to use it. From Elvis to Massive Attack.
Prog-rock is not Nu-rock, Art-rock or Experimetal-rock. Although they are all related somehow.
Idisaffect wrote:By definition it is anything that advances the form. Moves it forward. Although if you try to advance it too much it ends up losing all its feeling and becomes an exercise.
That's the standard definition of "ANYTHING progressive". However a sort of modern (1990's) retcon definition of 'Progressive Rock' as a GENRE would be that it is rock music with multiple "chord progressions" on each indiviual piece. That would be the basic trait of the genre, but not the only one. Otherwise the term would be obsolete because anything that at some moment of history sounded NEW could be fit to use it. From Elvis to Massive Attack.
Prog-rock is not Nu-rock, Art-rock or Experimetal-rock. Although they are all related somehow.
That pretty much serves as an example for my earlier discussion on the occasional futility of language. Words have different meanings to different people and so genres become meaningless. Music has different meanings to different people as well but it seems more direct than words somehow. I am aware of what the kritics call prog. I don't even care for most of it. I'd rather hear Johnny Thunders! However, I checked alot of it out and for some reason(lack of anything better to do as a kid) I read alot of music writing and I know a bit about prog rock. ELP, Yes, post 1971 Tull, Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, all the ones I didn't mention and all the obscure bands I'm not willing to mention, that shit is officially prog in the great written (agreed upon?) history of later 20th century commercial music. They all transcend genre so of course we had to come up with a label for stuff that attempts to defy any labels. Floyd don't need no stinking genre! If they did it would not be prog. Weird time signatures and tempo changes just for the sake of "complexity" is not what floyd's about. Lucky us. (Is anyone actually reading this?)
PublicImage wrote:
Okay, so what does make a piece of music progressive?
By definition it is anything that advances the form. Moves it forward. Although if you try to advance it too much it ends up losing all its feeling and becomes an exercise. A thing like Passion Play by Jethro Tull may be trying too hard to be progressive and ends up slightly annoying. Heavy Horses is a more successful attempt in my opinion. I like music that transcends labels. A band like Can might be called progressive but it is also at times minimal and regressive. (which I like)
Besides, though I find some DSOTM tracks themselves not progressive, I think the album as whole is. Don't forget that the original idea was to make a suite, so the tracks are logically just parts of one big suite.
moom wrote:
Besides, though I find some DSOTM tracks themselves not progressive, I think the album as whole is. Don't forget that the original idea was to make a suite, so the tracks are logically just parts of one big suite.
hmm ...can't wait to see what Roger says in response to that
