Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 92

Thread: After 40+ Years, Prog Needs Sub-Categories

  1. #26
    Member Since: 3/27/2002 MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Kingdom of YHVH
    Posts
    2,770
    1. In the late 60s you had Pink Floyd forging the Spacerock style of Prog
    2. by the end of the 60s the Moodies, the Nice and Crimso were forging the Symph style of Prog
    3. and Tony Williams, Larry Coryell and Jonny Mac were forging the Fusion style of Prog
    4. Vander also was beginning the Zuehl style Prog
    5. and Egg were forming the Canterbury style of Prog
    6. Santana, Osibisa and Mandrill mined the combination of African and Latin music with Rock in the Afro Prog style
    7. and Zappa as well as others had already been creating Avant style Prog
    8. Ash Ra and Guru Guru were exploring the Kosmische (Kraut) style of Prog as well

    all this was pre 1971... it was a great time to be a music fan!
    but no one delineated between any of those styles of Prog back then... it was all just new, exciting, experimental combinations of Rock and other musics and many of us reveled in the moment.
    Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?

  2. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by KeytroneK View Post
    After viewing the latest Prog Magazine Top 100 list of all time and the various replies, I dare to submit the following.
    Progressive music, to me, is anything outside of the box and encompasses all musical genres. What Prog needs is defined sub-categories.
    The Prog Magazine list is OK, but omitted other great bands that can be classified as Prog. The Fusion category always seems to get left out in the cold and, to me, there's nothing more progressive than blending different musical styles into a single statement. In fact, all of the classic Prog bands of the early '70's fused folk, classical, blues, jazz, rock and other musical genres to create their new "progressive" sound.
    After giving the subcategory thing some thought, I came up with the following:

    Prog Classic – Yes, Genesis, KC, et. al. (bombastic epics of yore)
    Prog Fusion – Return To Forever, Bruford, Brand X, Ponty, Holdsworth, Zappa, Ozric Tentacles (lots of notes and odd meters)
    Prog Metal – DT, Mastodon, Opeth (bombastic epics with lots of notes (aka shred) and detuned chords turned up to 11)
    Nu Prog – P Tree, S Wilson, Transatlantic, Flower Kings, N Morse, Sound of Contact, etc. (pop songs with esoteric lyrics, a few weird chord changes, way fewer notes, and the occasional odd meter)
    Prog-tronic – Tangerine Dream, Oldfield, Jarre, O’Hearn, Jobson (textural instrumental music, once defined as New Age)

    See if you can think of a Prog artist / band that does not fit into one of these categories...
    You're definitely on to something. However, as others have pointed out, the above doesn't actually cover everything. I think 7 or 8 additional categories should do it.

    For now, anyway.

    Don't get sidetracked by that Amused to Death red herring. Amused to Death isn't prog, so therefore it need not be accounted for by any of the prog subgenres. Although if we *were* to come up with a genre for Amused to Death, I think "post-prog AOR/artrock" would probably describe it best.

  3. #28
    Jon Neudorf
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
    Posts
    442
    IMO Amused To Death is prog.

    Regards,
    Jon

  4. #29
    Geriatric Anomaly progeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    11,318
    The anality in this thread is staggering.
    "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"

    President Harry S. Truman

  5. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Prog as a genre doesn't exist. End of!
    The so called prog "sub-categories" are in fact the genres per se, they aren't sub to anything. Fusion is fusion, Canterbury is Canterbury, symphonic is symphonic, art rock is art rock, space rock is space rock, psych is psych, RIO is RIO, avantgarde is avantgarde, metal is metal (prog-metal is a sub-category of metal not of the non-existent "prog genre")

  6. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by progeezer View Post
    The anality in this thread is staggering.
    +1

  7. #32
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Show me two bands who play the same type of music... and I'll show you two metal bands.

  8. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JKL2000 View Post
    Ok, which of those categories would Roger Waters' Amused to Death go in?
    The same place as all his other solo albums go, from The Final Cut onward...

    Navel-Gazing prog

  9. #34
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by progeezer View Post
    The anality in this thread is staggering.


    No idea if "anality" is a word, but if it isn't, it should be!
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  10. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Show me two bands who play the same type of music... and I'll show you two metal bands.
    Exactly.

  11. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER View Post
    1. In the late 60s you had Pink Floyd forging the Spacerock style of Prog
    2. by the end of the 60s the Moodies, the Nice and Crimso were forging the Symph style of Prog
    3. and Tony Williams, Larry Coryell and Jonny Mac were forging the Fusion style of Prog
    4. Vander also was beginning the Zuehl style Prog
    5. and Egg were forming the Canterbury style of Prog
    6. Santana, Osibisa and Mandrill mined the combination of African and Latin music with Rock in the Afro Prog style
    7. and Zappa as well as others had already been creating Avant style Prog
    8. Ash Ra and Guru Guru were exploring the Kosmische (Kraut) style of Prog as well

    all this was pre 1971... it was a great time to be a music fan!
    but no one delineated between any of those styles of Prog back then... it was all just new, exciting, experimental combinations of Rock and other musics and many of us reveled in the moment.
    Your use of the phrases "style of prog" & "prog style" after every number are redundant while at the same time providing the best proof ever that prog was never a genre of music. I agree with you though, it wasall just new underground/experimental music back then. You can throw in Hendrix, Black Sabbath, Jethro Tull, Traffic, Nirvana, and The Nice as well.

  12. #37
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Your use of the phrases "style of prog" & "prog style" after every number are redundant while at the same time providing the best proof ever that prog was never a genre of music.
    Huh?
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by progeezer View Post
    The anality in this thread is staggering.
    Illustrating this was actually the point of my post, which may have been missed. In fact the very first response to it was to contradict my assertion that Amused to Death isn't prog. Which was one of the points I was trying to hit on: if people can't agree on what constitutes prog generally, how important/useful/necessary are additional subdivisions?

    Not very, I would say.

  14. #39
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    The so called prog "sub-categories" are in fact the genres per se, they aren't sub to anything. Fusion is fusion, Canterbury is Canterbury, symphonic is symphonic, art rock is art rock, space rock is space rock, psych is psych, RIO is RIO, avantgarde is avantgarde, metal is metal (prog-metal is a sub-category of metal not of the non-existent "prog genre")
    I submit that this is counter to the consensus of the community that exhibits a more-than-passing-acquaintance with the music; that is, there's general agreement among aficionados that most of your examples fall--however uncomfortably--under the over-arching sub-category of Rock music nominally known as "Prog." ("Fusion" is a sub-category of jazz in my experience, and "psych," while progressive, was not "Prog").
    Last edited by mogrooves; 08-11-2014 at 12:15 PM.
    Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes

  15. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Bails View Post


    No idea if "anality" is a word, but if it isn't, it should be!

    I agree. I must confess though, simply read it as inanity. But anality would be a great word, it could be a mix of inanity + banality + anally retentive = anality.

    Works for me

  16. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mogrooves View Post
    I submit that this is counter to the consensus of the community that exhibits a more-than-passing-acquaintance with the music; that is, there's general agreement among aficionados that most of your examples fall--however uncomfortably--under the over-arching sub-category of Rock music nominally known as "Prog." ("Fusion" is a sub-category of jazz in my experience, and "psych," while progressive, was not "Prog").
    Nor is metal part of prog. Nor was most art-rock part of prog.

  17. #42
    Member Since: 3/27/2002 MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Kingdom of YHVH
    Posts
    2,770
    Quote Originally Posted by mogrooves View Post
    I submit that this is counter to the consensus of the community that exhibits a more-than-passing-acquaintance with the music; that is, there's general agreement among aficionados that most of your examples fall--however uncomfortably--under the over-arching sub-category of Rock music nominally known as "Prog." ("Fusion" is a sub-category of jazz in my experience, and "psych," while progressive, was not "Prog").
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Nor is metal part of prog. Nor was most art-rock part of prog.
    which all goes to prove that there is no consensus of the definition of Prog music styles among afficionados of the style.
    many discount Fusion, many include Fusion
    many discount Prog Metal, many include Prog Metal... etc. on and on and on and on ad nauseum

    BTW, I should have included Prog Metal in my last post as well as Electronic Prog but they did not happen until after 1971 and my previous post was to focus on the first artists who did capital P Progressive things using Rock music elements.
    Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?

  18. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER View Post
    which all goes to prove that there is no consensus of the definition of Prog music styles among afficionados of the style.
    many discount Fusion, many include Fusion
    many discount Prog Metal, many include Prog Metal... etc. on and on and on and on ad nauseum

    BTW, I should have included Prog Metal in my last post as well as Electronic Prog but they did not happen until after 1971 and my previous post was to focus on the first artists who did capital P Progressive things using Rock music elements.
    What about the 80's definition of progressive music which was rock which had progressive political or humanistic lyrical themes?

  19. #44
    Member Since: 3/27/2002 MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Kingdom of YHVH
    Posts
    2,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    What about the 80's definition of progressive music which was rock which had progressive political or humanistic lyrical themes?
    yes, of course, I remember that well. We called it Punk Rock
    Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?

  20. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Show me two bands who play the same type of music... and I'll show you two metal bands.

    While I agree with the vast majority of your posts, this makes no sense to me. No offense, but I could cite countless pairs of groups that play the same type of music and sound more than coincidentally similar doing so: marillion and IQ (neo-prog), Radiohead and Muse (alt-prog), Yes and Starcastle (classic prog, for lack of a better term) to name a few.
    'The smell of strange colours are heard everywhere'- Threshold

  21. #46
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by progeezer's ghost View Post
    Yes and Starcastle (classic prog, for lack of a better term).
    Symph.
    Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes

  22. #47
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    The idea of sub-genres makes sense. The only additional suggestion I'd make is dropping the tag "prog" from all of them.

    No, seriously. There was only a quite short time period when the term "prog" was useful and described a particular sound - namely, symphonic prog a la Yes and Moody Blues. It's now become such a broad term, being used to mean anything that was somewhat out of the box, that one could reasonably argue that Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich were prog.

    The obvious piece of evidence is Sgt Pepper's. The Beatles were probably the most commercially successful hit-makers of all time; you would have been laughed at if you called that album "prog" at the time of its release. Yet many, myself included, would claim that it was genuinely progressive with a small 'p'. To a lesser extent you could say the same about Led Zeppelin, or an album such as "What's Going on" by Marvin Gaye. Sometimes I think it would be easier to define a genre called "non-prog", along with all the other genres.

  23. #48
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    ....the term "prog" was useful and described a particular sound - namely, symphonic prog a la Yes and Moody Blues. It's now become such a broad term, being used to mean anything that was somewhat out of the box.

    The obvious piece of evidence is Sgt Pepper's. The Beatles were probably the most commercially successful hit-makers of all time; you would have been laughed at if you called that album "prog" at the time of its release. Yet many, myself included, would claim that it was genuinely progressive with a small 'p'.
    The original term for the Moody Blues, Yes, and other first generation groups of this ilk in the late 60s/early 70s was "Art Rock," a metonym for "western classical music," which was, of course, a signal feature of the music. However, retrospectively it would be called "symph," a sub-category of nominal (upper-case "P") "Progressive Rock" (later, "Prog", for short), which itself had replaced "Art Rock" as the preferred term by the mid-ish 70s. ("Art Rock" would be refigured in the late 70s/early 80s with reference to bands such as the Talking Heads, Roxy Music, Bowie, and others).

    "Out of the box" concisely describes the original meaning of lower-case "p" progressive, and I agree that Pepper was descriptively progressive, but not nominally "Prog."
    Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes

  24. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER View Post
    which all goes to prove that there is no consensus of the definition of Prog music styles among afficionados of the style.
    many discount Fusion, many include Fusion
    many discount Prog Metal, many include Prog Metal... etc. on and on and on and on ad nauseum
    Exactly. I am in full agreement with your view on it.

  25. #50
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    10,223
    Quote Originally Posted by progeezer's ghost View Post

    While I agree with the vast majority of your posts, this makes no sense to me. No offense, but I could cite countless pairs of groups that play the same type of music and sound more than coincidentally similar doing so: marillion and IQ (neo-prog), Radiohead and Muse (alt-prog), Yes and Starcastle (classic prog, for lack of a better term) to name a few.
    You think Radiohead & Muse sound more than coincidentally similar?
    Ian

    Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
    https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/

    Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
    I blame Wynton, what was the question?
    There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •