When did assimilation of other genres start?

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

MT and I have disagreed with his insistent categorization of everything under the sun as progrock for years.

you are fantasizing with yourself it seems since at least 25% of my music collection is not what I would consider 'artists doing progressive things incorporating Rock music elements'... or perhaps you are just the kind of cretin who likes to argue. Whichever the case, you'll just have to argue with yourself since I am obviously not who you want me to be. I like lots of non Prog music

[philsunset]

But -- and here may be the key point -- what Frank meant by "progressive" in 1968 is music that was consciously trying to incorporate new elements. It wasn't "Progressive Rock" (with a capital P) as a genre distinct unto itself.

That came later, in retrospect. And yes, it's all-encompassing.

Exactly. Their "progressive rock" was our proto-prog. I guess my point was use of the descriptor "progressive rock" predated Crimson.

[PeterG]

Exactly. Their "progressive rock" was our proto-prog. I guess my point was use of the descriptor "progressive rock" predated Crimson.

Yes,exactly is correct. However, it goes further than that, their progressive music or the progressive underground as I mentioned early, wasn't just our proto-prog rock, it was also hard rock and proto-metal and fusion and the weird and avantgarde and grungy, it was everything basically, again as I mentioned earlier that wasn't being played on the radio.
As a contemporary source I have a couple of albums from the period called "progressive music" and going by today's idea of prog at least 2 thirds of it wouldn't be considered prog by people here.

For me a flow chart would look kind of like lots of stuff funnelling down into psych from about 66 to 69 and then a lot of that stuff spurting out the other end in 69-71 into the underground scene and from that emerged prog rock.

And that should have been it, Prog Rock and the various other styles coming out of that late 60s early 70s experimental melting pot should have plasticized into definitive styles. Most of them did, but for some reason, (and this brings me back to my original Q) prog rock established no boundaries and remained amorphous and thus fans were free to assimilate other stuff for evermore.

[Svetonio]

as for 'artists calling themselves Prog', there were a total of ZERO artists who called themselves "Prog" in the original Progressive Rock music explosion. (...)

Well, Frank Zappa certainly wasn't shouting around "I prog", but here at the end of this version of King Kong, recorded live at concert in London, in October 1968, he says the word "progress"; you can hear it very clear at 7: 48 in this video...






...and what about that how little then was needed that someone from really delighted audience (at the album some frenetic applause can be heard) the day after the concert just said in a pub at Soho that, "last night I listened to progressive music" (or "progressive rock"). And how little was needed then that the new term simply move on...

[moecurlythanu]

It was after the rise of the internet.

Here is a photo of the "Prog" as it looked at he time when the internet first came into vogue:

IMG_2693_zps5742be8b.jpg

Here is a photo of "Prog," as it eyes an unsuspecting genre to assimilate:

doomentoriginal.jpg

And here, a small subgenre prepares for it's assimilation by "The Prog":

IMG_2726_zps130f50aa.jpg

This voracious genre shows no signs of letting up. No genre or subgenre is safe. (I see you laughing, Benny Goodman...Just you wait!)

[Vic2012]

Hilarious

[moecurlythanu]

This is an artist's rendition of "The Prog," as it eyes a large, tit-shaped genre. Beware Lillith Fest roster, your time is short!:

Doomsday_Machine_fires.jpg

[Rick Robson]

... the proper assimilation of the genre isn't yet accomplished ...

[Trane]

[Scrotum Scissor]

Henry Cow were labeled simply as "avant-rock" as a sub-genre of prog.

Hm.

Don't tell the editorial at The Wire Magazine that their beloved avant-rock is a "sub-genre of prog", my friend. They'll have your right eye and left bottock out before you know it.

And I fear somehow that if anyone would ever try explaining Chris Cutler that Henry Cow constituted a part of a "sub-genre of prog", they'd might be submitted to some kind of telepathically intellectual lobotomy right there on the spot.

[dgtlman]

It was after the rise of the internet.

Here is a photo of the "Prog" as it looked at he time when the internet first came into vogue:

IMG_2693_zps5742be8b.jpg

Here is a photo of "Prog," as it eyes an unsuspecting genre to assimilate:

doomentoriginal.jpg

And here, a small subgenre prepares for it's assimilation by "The Prog":

IMG_2726_zps130f50aa.jpg

This voracious genre shows no signs of letting up. No genre or subgenre is safe. (I see you laughing, Benny Goodman...Just you wait!)

WOW! I had no idea. It all makes sense now. Thanks Curly!

[PeterG]

It was after the rise of the internet.

Here is a photo of the "Prog" as it looked at he time when the internet first came into vogue:

IMG_2693_zps5742be8b.jpg

Here is a photo of "Prog," as it eyes an unsuspecting genre to assimilate:

doomentoriginal.jpg

And here, a small subgenre prepares for it's assimilation by "The Prog":

IMG_2726_zps130f50aa.jpg

This voracious genre shows no signs of letting up. No genre or subgenre is safe. (I see you laughing, Benny Goodman...Just you wait!)

Brilliant!

[PeterG]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean The Borg aren't out to get you.

[Reid]

Zappa was Zappa, a genre unto himself.

And a master of assimilation.

[rcarlberg]

for some reason, (and this brings me back to my original Q) prog rock established no boundaries and remained amorphous

The term "prog rock" REMAINS amorphous and without boundaries, and so means whatever you want it to mean.

[Trane]

Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
Zappa was Zappa, a genre unto himself.

And a master of assimilation.

and a master of dissimulation witrh his double entendre

[Svetonio]

Hm.

Don't tell the editorial at The Wire Magazine that their beloved avant-rock is a "sub-genre of prog", my friend. They'll have your right eye and left bottock out before you know it.

And I fear somehow that if anyone would ever try explaining Chris Cutler that Henry Cow constituted a part of a "sub-genre of prog", they'd might be submitted to some kind of telepathically intellectual lobotomy right there on the spot.

LOL! Well, back in the 70s, the sub-genres of *progressive music*, or *styles of progressive music* if you like it better, were: *progressive rock* (the albums like Music in a Doll's House, In the Court of the Crimson King, Larks' Tongues in Aspic, Red, In the Land of Grey and Pink, Pawn Hearts, Aqualung, and so on), *symphonic rock* (back in the day also called "flash-rock" but that term is extinct) (the albums like Trespass, A Trick Of The Tail, Tarkus, Close to the Edge, A Passion Play, Moonmadness), *space rock* (the albums like Flying Teapot, Fish Rising, L, Space Ritual), *avant-rock* (the albums by Henry Cow, Magma, Zappa) *ambient rock* (the albums by Mike Oldfield, Brian Eno - except his debut which is Art Rock, Vangelis), *Berlin School [of electronic music]* (Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze) *krautrock* / *kosmische musik* (Can, Neu!, Popol Vuh), *jazz-rock / fusion* (synonymes back then) (Soft Machine, Back Door, Brand X, Return To Forever, Weather Report, early 70s albums by Miles Davis, Steely Dan with Aja and so on).

And that was all, because those terms were / are "organic" as they have emerged spontaneously among the fans ("proggers"), journalists and LPs resellers, actually developed as the best possible and yet short descriptions of the bands' music aswell, they are not artificial "genres" invented in early 00s at the web just as a sh*t "products" of some "conossieur's" mental masturbation, like "heavy prog", "crossover prog" - for 70s & 80s Art Rock acts etc, which simply weren't existed at the time when Rush was a (great) hard rock band and Songs From The Wood was a (great) folk-rock album.

p.s. Btw, that new, reborn progressive rock, with the bands that play mixed stlyes, perhaps should be categorized just as "retro-prog" and "contemporary prog", and then allow reviewers to describe the music.

[Onomatopoeic]

Resistance is futile.

You music genre R belong to us now.

[Sputnik]

well, the full term "progressive rock" was used back in the 70s, but no artist ever said "I'm part of the progressive rock genre" or anything of the like. It was the rag writers and critics who used "progressive rock" for many artists including Jimi Hendrix. The 4-letter term "prog" didn't rear its ugly head until the Neo-Symph weenies were in full swing in the mid-late 80s.

I dug out my copy of Autumn's Oceanworld the other day and happened to be reading the liner notes. They had something to say about this I found interesting.

"In the lave 1960s a wonderful moment in the history of music was to take hold of peoples imagination. Our definition of progressive music was the exploration of complex rhythmical and notational structures far beyond the boundaries hitherto set by popular music...

Progressive music was a natural extension of the long extemporized jams of the 67 - 69 psychedelic period - bands like The Nice and Pink Floyd were moving in a more structured direction. With the emergence of bands like Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, ELP, Egg and Gentle Giant at the start of the 1970s, musical boundaries were shattered giving progressive musicians and their followers the belief that anything was possible. The Progressive Rock movement was forming, taking part of its root from the hippie era (with free-form thinking being applied to the standard musical rules) and part of its root from the classics (using compositional styles from the romantic and baroque periods)...

Progressive music was predominately a British invention – it is not really possible to include under its banner such bands as The Grateful Dead and Tangerine Dream – their pieces were more atmospheric and jam-inspired than the British progressives. Nor can bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath or Wishbone Ash be included although Deep Purple certainly veered towards progressive music, particularly through the influence of Jon Lord. Pink Floyd were, as they are now, a law unto themselves and, whilst being a major force in the psychedelic era, concentrated on a more thematic song approach – not so technically embellished as say a Yes piece but still very atmospheric.”

To me, this says a few things. First, there was an acknowledged style or approach among some musicians that differed from the psychedelic approach or other rock approaches, and was identified with a key core of bands approaching music in a similar way. It seems that this style was called “progressive,” thought that certainly doesn't discount that “progressive” was applied to other approaches previously. Additionally, at some point, this particular approach by these particular bands became known as “Progressive Rock.” My sense is that this happened in the early 1970s, when these bands were at the height of their popularity.

When bands like Autumn were getting started around 1974, I think they had a clear sense of being a “Progressive Rock” band in the way they define it above, and have a clear sense of what is and isn't “Progressive Rock.” I believe they and others did identify themselves with that particular approach, if not indeed the term “Progressive Rock,” and didn't find it at all inhibiting, until later in the 1970s.

As far as the term “Prog,” I know with certainty it pre-dated the 1980s, because that was how the “style” was first presented to me in 1978. Yeah, that's late 1970s, but my sense is the term “Prog Rock” had been in use for some time as a shortening of Progressive Rock, at least in the area I grew up.

Bill

[Mikhael]

you are fantasizing with yourself it seems since at least 25% of my music collection is not what I would consider 'artists doing progressive things incorporating Rock music elements'... or perhaps you are just the kind of cretin who likes to argue. Whichever the case, you'll just have to argue with yourself since I am obviously not who you want me to be. I like lots of non Prog music

Nope, neither. Just reflecting on a history of categorical differences, well documented, that's all. You and I have had some nice discussion on occasion, but not when it comes to your insistence on your labeling scheme (as seen above). Plus, you would do well to speak in a civil manner when dealing with those you've not personally met yet.

[Scott Bails]

Is there anything more boring than an argument about what is or isn't prog?

[rcarlberg]

Is there anything more boring than an argument about what is or isn't prog?

Yes. Be careful what you ask for!

[moecurlythanu]

Is there anything more boring than an argument about what is or isn't prog?

Yep. I'd rather discuss the racial make-up of early Progressive Rock bands.

[Scott Bails]

Yep. I'd rather discuss the racial make-up of early Progressive Rock bands.

Okay - you've got me there.

[3LockBox]

It seems the term 'prog' is either too broad or too vague for purists, but it works for me. The two terms 'prog' and 'progressive' may have been interchangeable back when but most likely mutually exclusive of one another in a modern context. Not a bad thing really. Only certain people are ever going to use the word 'prog' to describe music and I'll have a good idea what they're talking about if and when they do. And for the people who hate the term 'prog' as it pertains to a genre of music, well, too bad. You're never getting that genie back in the bottle. For those of us who came late to the party it's just too handy a word.