To label or not to label? That is the question for Prog.

[StevegSr]

I get the subtlest of hints from many PE members that labels for Prog, or subgenres if you like, are not needed or appreciated with Neo Prog tag being one the sticking points.

This seems foolish to me as Prog labels easily serve to identify a band with a particular sound or style such as the Symphonic Prog tag. An easy way to describe classic Yes or Renaissance. I understand that many, including Prog artists themselves, hate these types of titles as they feel pigeonholed by them.

I have no problem with the Neo Prog tag myself. These bands were generally influenced by Yes, Genesis and Floyd.

The difference between Yes, Genesis and Floyd, in relation to Neo Prog bands, was that they were the innovators and had no real influences. For an example, Chris Squire's use of stereo bass signals that were patched into both a Bass Amp and a Guitar Amp with a fuzz box was of his own doing. He invented it and the trebly Squire bass sound was born.

I do agree that there are redundant labels for Prog groups, just look the numerous subgenres that Prog Archives subscribes to. A good idea taken to the extreme.

So, to label or not to label. I'm off to the US, so have some fun with this.

[Scott Bails]

I'm fine with labels, but find things such as "Is X prog?" or "why isn't X on ProgArchives" to be rather silly.

Labels can be useful as descriptors or reference points, but they shouldn't be the be-all, end-all.

[Sean]

"I do agree that there are redundant labels for Prog groups, just look the numerous subgenres that Prog Archives subscribes to. A good idea taken to the extreme."

That's sort of it in a nutshell. It's their thing and they thrive on it. Here I have always suggested going deeper and skipping most of that because while it's handy, it's minutiae and rather dull and shallow in and of it's self to discuss.

Reasons on WHY the music resonates with us and our motivations from it are what we looked to steer towards and we still do. Also, the times in our lives when it came to us, the times we discovered it and what we'd like to share of it and our adventures with it. That makes for more interesting reading than how someone puts something in a specific box or category in the long run.

[Yves]

My issue is more with people who try to cram everything under the prog umbrella. As soon as a band dares to play in odd time signatures, uses a Moog or a Mellotron, writes a song over 6 minutes long...they're automatically PROG.

[strawberrybrick]

If a label helps you find something that you enjoy, that's good. Especially if it doesn't steer you away from something you may also enjoy.

[Sputnik]

I'm perfectly fine with labels as "general guides" or "shorthands" for discussion. In that sense, it's nice to have labels that are meaningful and descriptive so folks can really get a sense of what is being talked about. I can see that labels can be taken negatively (Neo-Prog being a good example), and I also agree that it's easy to get carried away, and at a certain point having too many labels becomes counter-productive. But I think the concept of labeling is absolutely basic, and the drive to categorize things is very much a part of human nature. So to me the key is finding the balance where labels are used productively, and avoiding the negative tendencies. Easier said than done.

My issue is more with people who try to cram everything under the prog umbrella. As soon as a band dares to play in odd time signatures, uses a Moog or a Mellotron, writes a song over 6 minutes long...they're automatically PROG.

I agree.

If a label helps you find something that you enjoy, that's good. Especially if it doesn't steer you away from something you may also enjoy.

I also agree with this, I think this is one of the most important and useful uses of labels. But it shows how bad labeling can create problems. The OP mentioned "Symphonic Prog," which covers an extremely wide spectrum of bands. To me, that label is useless as it frequently encompasses bands like Knight Area or Riverside in addition to Yes and ELP. Totally different things in my mind, so that is a label I tend to just ignore.

Zeuhl is far better, you almost always know what you'll get with Zeuhl, though there are some bands that are more "fusion" oriented and others that are more "Magma" oriented, so you have to be a bit careful there unless you dig both approaches. Canterbury is another pretty good descriptive label where you typically know what you're getting and talking about.

I'd like to see some similar terms that break out bands under the "Symphonic" umbrella, but you'd probably have an easier time of bringing peace to the Middle East than getting Prog fans to agree on new labels and who falls were. And then there's the "Prog" label itself, a hopeless morass.

Bill

[bob_32_116]

I have no problem with labels like "symphonic prog". It says something about the music. Moreover, it's usually fairly easy to decide whether something qualifies or not as "symphonic"

I try to steer clear of terms like "neo-prog", because it tells me nothing (except that someone considers it a kind of prog). Sure, you may think you know what you mean by "neo-prog", but the "neo" actually says nothing about the music. Hence, you get disagreements about what is and is not "neo-prog", and the arguments can never be fully resolved because it's based on different people's vague concepts.

I have similar issues with all the "post" genres. "post-punk", "post-rock". Is it rock, or isn't it? And if it isn't, how about trying to describe what it is? you may as well say post-classical, or post-baroque.

It's as I have said several times on PE; labels are good if they inform, not when they confuse.

[Progatron]

The difference between Yes, Genesis and Floyd, in relation to Neo Prog bands, was that they were the innovators and had no real influences.

I agree that they were innovators, but they most certainly had influences.

[Sean]

My issue is more with people who try to cram everything under the prog umbrella. As soon as a band dares to play in odd time signatures, uses a Moog or a Mellotron, writes a song over 6 minutes long...they're automatically PROG.

Yeah, the whole "I'm a prog fan and I have to justify liking anything outside the genre by forcing it into it somehow" is the lamest shit around. Just like what you like. Who gives a toss if it passes the prog litmus test!

[Yves]

My point exactly...People asking if "so and so" is prog so they can then like them without losing their prog cred... Or concluding "so and so" must be prog BECAUSE they like them....

[StevegSr]

The OP mentioned "Symphonic Prog," which covers an extremely wide spectrum of bands. To me, that label is useless as it frequently encompasses bands like Knight Area or Riverside in addition to Yes and ELP. Totally different things in my mind...



Bill

I'm not doubting that you heard or read that Riverside and Knight Area are Symphonic Prog, but that's news to me. Riverside has been described as Progressive Metal and Knight Area as Neo. Perhaps the problem lies with who is doing the labeling.

[Scott Bails]

Yeah, the whole "I'm a prog fan and I have to justify liking anything outside the genre by forcing it into it somehow" is the lamest shit around. Just like what you like. Who gives a toss if it passes the prog limus test!

[StevegSr]

I agree that they were innovators, but they most certainly had influences.

Yes, you could say that Squire was influenced by McCartney, Jack Bruce and John Entwistle but he does not sound remotely like any of them. See what I mean.

[Sean]

Now if the 90s neo bands didn't sound like any of them (70s bands) the neo tag wouldn't fit anymore, would it? Neo= derivative. Right?

[StevegSr]

Now if the 90s neo bands didn't sound like any of them (70s bands) the neo tag wouldn't fit anymore, would it? Neo= derivative. Right?

A tricky question, so I'll tread carefully. Neo Prog is no more derivative to me than 60's English Electric Blues artists are of 30's Black American blues artists. Was there a borrowing of riffs, melodies and licks? You bet. Were the Yardbirds, Cream, Led Zeppelin, and Jeff Beck great because of it? Yes.

Derivative does not have be a negative connotation.

[Zeuhlmate]

Labeling is shorthand for describing.

[Sean]

Barely though.... It's a shorthanded description.

[Jerjo]

I'm too old to mess with labels and pigeonholes. These are now my requirements for anything falling under the rock banner: passion, intelligence, guitars, and a real drummer. Bonus points for swagger or grandeur. I've got John Hiatt playing right now. Also played today: Steely Dan, Joe Bonamassa, Kansas, and Zep. All of 'em fit the bill.

[Mikhael]

I'm just waiting. He'll HAVE to show up here. Or is he gone now? I've been away myself, for about 2 years (life happens)...

[Rick Robson]

I wonder if the utility of labeling is a subjective matter. In my case it just serves for not digging music I'm not yet getting its spirit, or else when not in the mood for it.
I guess it's kind of personal too the way for categorizing one's personal music collection. For me the only ones which make sense are: Avant-garde/RIO, Prog/progressive, Jazz Fusion, Pop, Rock, World Music, Classical Music. But I'm OK with Canterbury and Zeuhl, since I know very very few of these music and can't object about them.

[Baribrotzer]

The problem is that discussion of the music can turn into a discussion of what label we give it. And that's ultimately pointless. Do Henry Cow count as a "Canterbury" band? LegEnd definitely fits in some way, though their later albums not so much, and Aymeric Leroy certainly includes them. But does it matter? To some extent, the label really comes down to how much they were influenced by such immediate peers as Robert Wyatt or the Hatfields, and how close to them they came stylistically - versus how much they were influenced by things further off from home like modern classical, free jazz, and FZ's Uncle Meat and how close to those they came. And when.

Or, in other words, just when and how did they move from a stylistic position on the outer end of the recognized "Canterbury" sub-genre, to a different, unique position of their own as pioneers and founders of the new "avant-prog" sub-genre? (leaving aside that they were building on what Frank Zappa had done several years before.) And how much, even as they moved further into uncharted territory, did they continue to owe to their "Canterbury" roots? Or to other rock and popular music?

All of which has a point. But when that discussion turns into nit-picking over what pigeonhole the music fits in, it loses most of that point.

[Sputnik]

I'm not doubting that you heard or read that Riverside and Knight Area are Symphonic Prog, but that's news to me. Riverside has been described as Progressive Metal and Knight Area as Neo. Perhaps the problem lies with who is doing the labeling.

That's exactly right. The problem with "Symphonic" though is that so many bands have a certain "symphonic" element, that this particular label becomes something of a dumping ground for bands that share one characteristic, but differ in other substantial (to some listener's) ways. I wonder if people who label Knight Area or IQ as "Symphonic" are trying to avoid the Neo-Prog term, or Prog Metal for Riverside, and there just isn't another term that fits. It just makes Symphonic a sort of grab bag to me, and I rarely get much from a band being labeled as such.

Now if the 90s neo bands didn't sound like any of them (70s bands) the neo tag wouldn't fit anymore, would it? Neo= derivative. Right?

Neo means "a new or different form of." As such it is derivative, or a continuation of a particular style, but the implication is that it brings something new to the table as well. I think the term applies quite well to the late 70s/early 80s bands to whom it was first applied, and those who have largely emulated their approach (Knight Area, for example).

The term Neo Prog carries a couple of implications that can be problematic, one being the incorporation of more "poppy" styles (New Wave, etc.), the other being that it just simply isn't as musically involved as the touchstone 70s Prog bands. So it has been somewhat stigmatized as "Prog Lyte," which unfortunately in some ways it is. But that isn't the fault of the term, but rather is the result of the particular musical approach the bands labeled "Neo" took. Had it been Thinking Plague rather than IQ that was labeled "Neo," the perception of the term would be quite different.

Bill

[strawberrybrick]

The problem is that discussion of the music can turn into a discussion of what label we give it. And that's ultimately pointless.
...
But when that discussion turns into nit-picking over what pigeonhole it fits in, it loses most of that point.

+1

[markwoll]

Reasons on WHY the music resonates with us and our motivations from it are what we looked to steer towards and we still do. Also, the times in our lives when it came to us, the times we discovered it and what we'd like to share of it and our adventures with it. That makes for more interesting reading than how someone puts something in a specific box or category in the long run.

This is it. Muisc that I like.
I mention it, someone else might like it. Someone else likes some music, mentions it, I might like it.
I might not like it, I move on and check out the next suggestion.
The music might sound like that stuff from the 70's that caught my ear and stuck with me to this day, might not.
Could I label it Prog, maybe. Do I really care?
Well, in the context of PE, maybe.
The bottom line is, if it strikes a chord with the music loving centers of my brain I will accept it. Period.

[angelo]

Hehe, a few months ago I added an an action to write an article on the 'Sense and nonsense of genre labeling' to my to do list. Maybe I should start writing it now.