The Future of Progressive Rock

[Shadow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I listened to the first two songs plus and would consider them more fusion than anything.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

pretty cool stuff for no Keys...
definitely does not sound like any of the music created by the artists of all races, ethnicity and musical backgrounds who were part of the advent of Progressive Rock music in 1971... yet it definitely sounds like a modern twist on Progressive Rock music.

I discovered this band, Chon, recently. Math Rock, but not as heavy and skronky as a lot of the Math Rock I've heard, so I've been sort of digging this. But this isn't an advertisement for Chon. I was watching this video, and it struck me that this is what I'd envision the future of Progressive Rock to look like. You don't have to watch the whole thing, the first couple of minutes shows what really caught my attention, which is a reasonably sized audience of young people listening intently to instrumentally demanding rock music.



I know Chon's music probably doesn't resonate with everyone here as "Progressive Rock," at least as exemplified by the big name 70s bands. But I think we have to face it, that ship has sailed, and unless some weird retro pop culture time-warp happens, that stuff isn't coming back into mass popularity, or even enough popularity to seriously support an underground scene. What encourages me about seeing this video is that Chon plays rock music (not Metal) that features hot-shit playing and a focus on the instrumentalists, with compositions that don't follow typical verse-chorus-bridge arrangements. These elements are, to me, the real crux of what Progressive Rock is all about. And to me, Chon exhibit enough of those critical elements to have no trouble classifying them as Progressive Rock.

For me, too many of the modern artsy rock bands lack enough of the hot shit playing and don't stray enough from pretty typical song form to really consider them Progressive Rock. I was pretty surprised to see this audience of young people listening to and enjoying music like this, and it gave me some hope. Yeah, it won't sound like Yes or ELP or even Hatfield and the North or VDGG. But maybe, just maybe it doesn't all have to be so bereft of the musical elements that made people think of bands like Yes, ELP, KC (and a host of others) as being a "special breed" within the larger rubric of rock music. For better or worse, those bands got tagged as "Progressive Rock," and elements of their style became synonymous with that sub-grouping of rock bands. But if you can strip that away without losing the meat on the bones, which is the great playing and challenging compositions within a rock context, then maybe there's hope.

So if there's any optimism, I think it lies here in bands that appeal to a new, young audience who embody the spirit, but not the sound, of what really made those big name 70s bands special and stand out even within a sea of other innovative and forward thinking artists. That's my opinion on the future of Progressive Rock. Not progressive music in some larger sense, but capital P Progressive Rock. Rock music that embodies those certain, and to me critical, musical elements.

Bill

[waren]

I discovered this band, Chon, recently. Math Rock, but not as heavy and skronky as a lot of the Math Rock I've heard, so I've been sort of digging this. But this isn't an advertisement for Chon. I was watching this video, and it struck me that this is what I'd envision the future of Progressive Rock to look like. You don't have to watch the whole thing, the first couple of minutes shows what really caught my attention, which is a reasonably sized audience of young people listening intently to instrumentally demanding rock music.



I know Chon's music probably doesn't resonate with everyone here as "Progressive Rock," at least as exemplified by the big name 70s bands. But I think we have to face it, that ship has sailed, and unless some weird retro pop culture time-warp happens, that stuff isn't coming back into mass popularity, or even enough popularity to seriously support an underground scene. What encourages me about seeing this video is that Chon plays rock music (not Metal) that features hot-shit playing and a focus on the instrumentalists, with compositions that don't follow typical verse-chorus-bridge arrangements. These elements are, to me, the real crux of what Progressive Rock is all about. And to me, Chon exhibit enough of those critical elements to have no trouble classifying them as Progressive Rock.

For me, too many of the modern artsy rock bands lack enough of the hot shit playing and don't stray enough from pretty typical song form to really consider them Progressive Rock. I was pretty surprised to see this audience of young people listening to and enjoying music like this, and it gave me some hope. Yeah, it won't sound like Yes or ELP or even Hatfield and the North or VDGG. But maybe, just maybe it doesn't all have to be so bereft of the musical elements that made people think of bands like Yes, ELP, KC (and a host of others) as being a "special breed" within the larger rubric of rock music. For better or worse, those bands got tagged as "Progressive Rock," and elements of their style became synonymous with that sub-grouping of rock bands. But if you can strip that away without losing the meat on the bones, which is the great playing and challenging compositions within a rock context, then maybe there's hope.

So if there's any optimism, I think it lies here in bands that appeal to a new, young audience who embody the spirit, but not the sound, of what really made those big name 70s bands special and stand out even within a sea of other innovative and forward thinking artists. That's my opinion on the future of Progressive Rock. Not progressive music in some larger sense, but capital P Progressive Rock. Rock music that embodies those certain, and to me critical, musical elements.

Bill

Casse Brique were a Belgian math-rock duo that also achieved an actual level of success in the circles of math-rock fans. Unlike Chon, the duo's music is without a hint of fusion, but the influence of Mr.Fripp's mathy riffs from his Red era is even more apparent. However, math-rock is a genre that came from alternative rock as well as from indie-rock aesthetic of the 1990s, thus despite if its complexity & odd time signatures, I doubt that math-rock could be regarded as "the future of prog-rock".

[proggy_jazzer]

I discovered this band, Chon, recently. Math Rock, but not as heavy and skronky as a lot of the Math Rock I've heard, so I've been sort of digging this. But this isn't an advertisement for Chon. I was watching this video, and it struck me that this is what I'd envision the future of Progressive Rock to look like. You don't have to watch the whole thing, the first couple of minutes shows what really caught my attention, which is a reasonably sized audience of young people listening intently to instrumentally demanding rock music.

Some nice stuff, especially the melodic duo-guitar passages. The kids can clearly play, and several obvious influences are clear, most notably Holdsworth (I hear a lot of "Road Games" in the first two tunes). They also have some background in soul, viz: the lifting of Bill Withers' changes from "Just The Two Of Us" for a good portion of the first tune. Good to hear young folks playing, and yes, digging this from an audience perspective. Does my heart good! I wish they'd taken more time to carefully tune before the set, though

[waren]

the term "progressive" was being applied to many artists playing heavy electric music in the late 60s
the term "progressive Rock" began to be used in the early 70s and included many artists of all races and musical backgrounds from Jazz to Classical to R&B that often toured together as "progressive Rock" artists. It was definitely not a Brit-centric term.

Of course not. It was entirely a London-centric term at the time when Canterbury was just a town in Kent.

[waren]

It's been discussed for a long time, but we are in a new time now. Will we ever see an epic return of Progressive Rock into popular culture as significant as the music was to it's former glory days?

Well I can see it right now, and I think that's progressive metal.

[Sputnik]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I listened to the first two songs plus and would consider them more fusion than anything.

I can hear that to some extent, but to me Fusion implies a high degree of soloing and improv, its legacy from the Jazz side of the Jazz Rock equation. Chon's music seems to lack that aspect and is highly through-composed, a hallmark of Progressive Rock. Also, since Prog and Fusion bleed into each other and share much of the same audience, the distinction is almost meaningless.

Casse Brique were a Belgian math-rock duo that also achieved an actual level of success in the circles of math-rock fans. Unlike Chon, the duo's music is without a hint of fusion, but the influence of Mr.Fripp's mathy riffs from his Red era is even more apparent.

Most interesting, I enjoyed that and will check out more.

However, math-rock is a genre that came from alternative rock as well as from indie-rock aesthetic of the 1990s, thus despite if its complexity & odd time signatures, I doubt that math-rock could be regarded as "the future of prog-rock".

Personally, I don't really care about that, it's the musical results that matter to me. Maybe Chon represents an evolution of Math Rock that brings it closer to Progressive Rock. Maybe they are as influenced by UK and KC as they are by 90s indie rock. I don't know. All I know is that what they are doing meets my criteria for Progressive Rock. If they'd come out of the Trance/Hip Hop scene with music like this, I wouldn't feel any differently.

More importantly, though, is that clearly some young people can be turned on by stuff like this. Forget the labels for a minute and focus on the idea that young people today can be into a rock band with exemplary chops that aren't afraid to flaunt them, playing music that doesn't conform to typical pop/rock sensibilities. Isn't that basically the aesthetic that the most popular Progressive Rock bands from the 70s championed? If so, then why can this not be a valid vision of how Progressive Rock carries forward into the future? Because it doesn't come from bands that overtly nod to those 70s greats, or from the "Prog Underground?"

Personally, I wouldn't limit the horizon that way. I do have my limits, the term "Progressive Rock" means something to me. But it means expressing musical elements, not belonging to a particular scene (in many cases, even the "Prog scene") or ticking certain boxes like using a Mellotron or simply having longer songs. It's more than that, and I'll take them no matter the background of the band/artist in question.

Bill

[Steve F.]

I like Chon. They are sort of the 'sunny side' of math rock.

[bondegezou]

This topic does come up in discussion now and then. But history indicates it doesn't look good...



Short answer: NO.

Long answer: In modern times, you'd be hard pressed to find good examples of music from the past that has a renaissance that is anywhere close to what it was in its heyday. In the case of progressive rock, it already had its revival - on several occasions, each time having less impact/relevance. The first was the 80s with "neo prog" (Marillion, IQ, etc.). The second was the 90s with "The Third Wave" (Spock's, TFK, PTree). Next was music identified as post rock as well as groups like The Mars Volta. There were also indie rock and metal bands like Radiohead and Tool that were being called "progressive rock" by some. Today, we have all kinds of genre blending/bending music.

With that said, it's actually quite a progressive renaissance out there now. One could say that for the progressive music fan, there is no better time than today in terms of the plethora of excellent recorded music.

But in terms of popular culture, prog is dead. And when it does emerge in pop culture in the form of groups like Radiohead, GY!BE, and The Mars Volta, most classic prog fans turn their noses up to it. Heck, even most new progressive rock we are familiar with here is only popular with a subset of fans.

In the end, if progressive rock ever does become popular again, it will likely sound very different, be popular with youth, and alienate most of the 1st wave fans.

^ This.

There will always be music that blends genres, that is rooted in the popular but experiments and brings in other influences. Sometimes some of it will be commercially successful. But the 1970s and "prog" isn't going to happen again.

The better question, perhaps, is what does the prog-listening community do about the state of affairs. Some fans of new, experimental music want to drag Genesis- or Crimson-loving fans along with them, to introduce them to a world of modern, genre-bending music. Or, from another perspective, they want these diverse new bands to be brought under a common label with the experimental bands of the 1970s and '80s. Progressive rock can live on as a broad church, embracing new, experimental acts.

I find myself less convinced. Why should new, experimental music in 2018 be lumbered with the baggage of what was new and experimental in 1974? I like what was new and experimental in 1974 and I will come here to talk to other people who like what was new and experimental in 1974 and gladly hear recommendations for the new and experimental music of 2018. But I think 2018's new, experimental music can have its own genre names. I may like it because it has commonalities with the older music I love, but I am content with prog in 2018 being a niche based mainly on past creativity, while modern experimental music continues to innovate. D'you see what I mean?

Henry

[battema]

I find myself less convinced. Why should new, experimental music in 2018 be lumbered with the baggage of what was new and experimental in 1974? I like what was new and experimental in 1974 and I will come here to talk to other people who like what was new and experimental in 1974 and gladly hear recommendations for the new and experimental music of 2018. But I think 2018's new, experimental music can have its own genre names. I may like it because it has commonalities with the older music I love, but I am content with prog in 2018 being a niche based mainly on past creativity, while modern experimental music continues to innovate. D'you see what I mean?

Yes.

[aith01]

Yes.

No Jon, no Yes.



But seriously, I agree with you and Henry.

[Zappathustra]

D'you see what I mean?

Actually I don't see what you mean, although I suspect what you mean. Would you have the same objections if we were talking about jazz music? Would you also have the jazz musicians of today, who experiment with new forms of expression, to adopt a new genre name? Or does it mind only with Prog? And at the bottom line, the problem remains with what one defines as Prog Rock in the first place. Is it only 1974? Is it the usual suspects we're just talking about? Yes, Genesis, Crimson? Is it UK and nothing else? And is this a self-evident truth that does not need further discussion?

There is a sense of historical continuity in rock music that one cannot discard with a light heart. I am not talking about retro bands, I am talking about bands that try something new which is rooted in the old tradition, like Regal Worm, or Discipline, or All Traps on Earth or whichever you name. In terms of artistic intentions and means of expression they're not at all different from the Fripps and the Andersons of the past. They deserve to be put and discussed together, as part of the same phenomenon. Yes, the label progressive is problematic, but it is also the only one we can use to communicate on the issue. It has to correspond to the essence of the phenomenon and not just to its exterior traits.

It is another thing that in our days it has become a stain with which most musicians want no relation whatsoever.

[Jay.Dee]

Actually I don't see what you mean, although I suspect what you mean. Would you have the same objections if we were talking about jazz music? Would you also have the jazz musicians of today, who experiment with new forms of expression, to adopt a new genre name? Or does it mind only with Prog? And at the bottom line, the problem remains with what one defines as Prog Rock in the first place. Is it only 1974? Is it the usual suspects we're just talking about? Yes, Genesis, Crimson? Is it UK and nothing else? And is this a self-evident truth that does not need further discussion?

Every music genre has its Wyntons.

Beware of the prog neo-cons!

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

in our days it has become a stain with which most musicians want no relation whatsoever.

so true... too many weenies trying to put it all in a tiny little white British gift wrapped box make people point and laugh at "prog"

[Steve F.]

Every music genre has its Wyntons.

Beware of the prog neo-cons!

Well said.

[bondegezou]

Actually I don't see what you mean, although I suspect what you mean. Would you have the same objections if we were talking about jazz music? Would you also have the jazz musicians of today, who experiment with new forms of expression, to adopt a new genre name? Or does it mind only with Prog? And at the bottom line, the problem remains with what one defines as Prog Rock in the first place. Is it only 1974? Is it the usual suspects we're just talking about? Yes, Genesis, Crimson? Is it UK and nothing else? And is this a self-evident truth that does not need further discussion?

There is a sense of historical continuity in rock music that one cannot discard with a light heart. I am not talking about retro bands, I am talking about bands that try something new which is rooted in the old tradition, like Regal Worm, or Discipline, or All Traps on Earth or whichever you name. In terms of artistic intentions and means of expression they're not at all different from the Fripps and the Andersons of the past. They deserve to be put and discussed together, as part of the same phenomenon. Yes, the label progressive is problematic, but it is also the only one we can use to communicate on the issue. It has to correspond to the essence of the phenomenon and not just to its exterior traits.

It is another thing that in our days it has become a stain with which most musicians want no relation whatsoever.

I take your point, but I think the comparison falls down because prog is a different level to jazz. You need to compare rock to jazz, or progressive rock to hard bop, or something.

I agree that there is a sense of historic continuity in rock (or jazz) music that should be remembered and discussed. I think all genre labels are inherently limited and some discussion works better with specifics (piece X influenced act Y) rather than using any genre labels. If "prog" or "progressive rock" is a useful term to communicate an issue, then use it. If it isn't, don't. I'm not suggesting banning any term: use whatever vocabulary is helpful. What I am saying is that there is a lot of new, experimental music where I listen to it through a lifetime of prog listening and I hear those commonalities, but where I think there hasn't been a large, direct influence and where different language would probably be better for communication.

Henry

[bondegezou]

so true... too many weenies trying to put it all in a tiny little white British gift wrapped box make people point and laugh at "prog"

There are times when we should push language to mean what we want, and times where we should accept how language is used. If most people use the term "prog" to mean something, then there are times when it may be useful to challenge that and say the term can also encompass other things. However, many times I see people pushing to expand the term "prog", I think they are acting selfishly, wanting others to fit their views, lazily ignoring other vocabulary that might apply better.

Henry

[Sputnik]

I take your point, but I think the comparison falls down because prog is a different level to jazz. You need to compare rock to jazz, or progressive rock to hard bop, or something.

Bingo! That's what I mean by it being a specific niche within a larger context, even a larger context that includes forward-thinking artsy rock music. It would be ludicrous to fear for the future of innovative music, even innovative rock music, though rock has its challenges looking forward. That's happening all around in a zillion different ways, but very few of those ways really resemble the musical elements of the big name 70s bands that touched our lives. The question has to be, "what's going to happen to that kind of stuff?" Otherwise, the question is meaningless.

Nobody is (or should be) asking "what is the future of Jazz?" Thats happening right now, just look around and you'll find it. But what is the future of Gypsy Jazz or Be-Bop, discrete niches within that larger context? That's the question for Progressive Rock, and sadly part of the baggage that comes with that question is defining exactly what you mean by "Progressive Rock."

There are times when we should push language to mean what we want, and times where we should accept how language is used. If most people use the term "prog" to mean something, then there are times when it may be useful to challenge that and say the term can also encompass other things. However, many times I see people pushing to expand the term "prog", I think they are acting selfishly, wanting others to fit their views, lazily ignoring other vocabulary that might apply better.

Again, bingo. If "Prog" is everything, then the term is meaningless. It's not a question of categorizing for the sake of categorizing and no category will ever be perfect. But what is it exactly someone is concerned about when they fear for the "future of Progressive Rock?" There's tons of experimental rock and other popular music out there. There it is... that's the future, enjoy it. Or is it? Does any of that stuff really embody at any meaningful level the musical elements that the big name Prog bands seemed to exemplify? If your personal answer is "no," then there is cause for concern, but you have to be clear about what concerns you, and that means narrowing it down in some way. In that sense, the language is simply a tool in that process.

There is a sense of historical continuity in rock music that one cannot discard with a light heart. I am not talking about retro bands, I am talking about bands that try something new which is rooted in the old tradition, like Regal Worm, or Discipline, or All Traps on Earth or whichever you name. In terms of artistic intentions and means of expression they're not at all different from the Fripps and the Andersons of the past. They deserve to be put and discussed together, as part of the same phenomenon. Yes, the label progressive is problematic, but it is also the only one we can use to communicate on the issue. It has to correspond to the essence of the phenomenon and not just to its exterior traits.

Henry can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he'd have any objection categorizing the bands you mention as "Progressive Rock," very much in line with the bands from the past most readily associated with that style. Seems to me, he was talking more about some of the "progressive artists" mentioned earlier in this thread and elsewhere (see the thread on Anna Meredith, for example) who are innovative and experimental, but who often fall outside the bounds of rock and don't exemplify other characteristics shared by the bands you mention. There seems to be an attempt by many to shoehorn that kind of stuff into "Progressive Rock," and I think Henry is saying perhaps other terms are better suited to these types of bands/artists, and that they are not really germane to a discussion of the future of Progressive Rock.

The better question, perhaps, is what does the prog-listening community do about the state of affairs. Some fans of new, experimental music want to drag Genesis- or Crimson-loving fans along with them, to introduce them to a world of modern, genre-bending music. Or, from another perspective, they want these diverse new bands to be brought under a common label with the experimental bands of the 1970s and '80s. Progressive rock can live on as a broad church, embracing new, experimental acts.

I've always had extreme doubts about this. To me, the baby goes out with the bathwater in that scenario. I understand that if Progressive Rock can't attract and retain enough critical mass of audience to be viable, it will die. So be it. To me, it dies anyway by being subsumed as a small piece into "experiential" music that rarely if ever delivers on the critical elements that to me define the style.

So what can the Prog-listening community do abut it? Not much at this point. There was a time I'd have said that we need to get away from the Yes-Genesis-insert name of 70s nostalgia act fixation we seem to have and throw that large-scale support behind bands like those Zappathustra mentions above. Had those bands been able to headline NearFests and ProgFests and still attract a full house, the future for that kind of stuff would be a lot brighter. Instead, when the festivals ran out of nostalgia acts, they couldn't make ends meet. That's not a recipe for a very bright future. At this point, it feels like the whole "Prog-listening community" thing is winding down and its ability to act, if there ever was one, is over. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but that's the way I've seen it for some time. The future, if there is one, I think lies outside of the current Prog underground, and outside its control. The best we can do is hope that it's a future any of us give a musical shit about.

Bill

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

There are times when we should push language to mean what we want, and times where we should accept how language is used. If most people use the term "prog" to mean something, then there are times when it may be useful to challenge that and say the term can also encompass other things. However, many times I see people pushing to expand the term "prog", I think they are acting selfishly, wanting others to fit their views, lazily ignoring other vocabulary that might apply better.

Henry

indeed! I always understood "prog" to be short for "progressive Rock music" but there are people who want "prog" to exclude a huge amount of progressive Rock music that was a big part of the advent of that era. If "prog" is just "Symphonic Rock" then call it that and people will know that you are talking about music made in the 70s by white guys only and copied over and over since. Progressive Rock music was a phenomenon that was started by artists of all colors and musical backgrounds in the late 60s-early 70s. It was comprised of the mixing of many styles of music with Rock music. Taking the backbeat style of rhythm that set Rock and Roll apart as a separate musical genre in the 50s and blending it with Classical, Jazz and Folk. Both Jazz musicians and black musicians had a huge part in taking Rock music to "progressive", new places in the late 60s-early 70s and *that* is the Progressive Rock that I experienced. The weenies who would push all that musical heritage aside to put their "prog" in a tiny little box have made many artists explicitly distance themselves from any connections to "prog".

If "prog" is just Symphonic Rock then there's nothing progressive about it; just call it Symph cause that represents only a fraction of the legacy of the late 60s-early 70s spirit of progressive Rock music.

[Purple_Camel]

I like Chon. They are sort of the 'sunny side' of math rock.

This seems like progressive rock to me, even with a hint of youthful rebellion. Nice to see some of the festival attendees enjoying this also.

[Top Cat]

I wouldn't worry about the future of Progressive Rock. To me, as long as there are 2 or more people writing music, with a passion to bring something new to the table, to express themselves with meaningfull lyrics, melody, and a drive to write outside of the proverbial commercial money driven hits produced by cookie cutter producers and cookie cutter artists, it will survive.
I don't even care if it still carries this weight of the term Progressive Rock. I think that term has far outlived it's usefulness and I couldn't care a doggies biscuit if it was ever used as a category again.

Good music will survive, regardless of what it's classified as.

[Zappathustra]

Henry can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he'd have any objection categorizing the bands you mention as "Progressive Rock," very much in line with the bands from the past most readily associated with that style.

But no, he was very specific about Prog being something that happened in 1974.

There are times when we should push language to mean what we want, and times where we should accept how language is used.

But there is always a time when we should try to establish the truth, or our notion of it. Just because some dork journalists decided some 40 years ago to pigeonhole progressive rock as Yes, Genesis and ELP only so as to be able to slander it more efficiently, it doesn't mean that we have to reproduce their false interpretation of the term. Of course one needs to accept the predominant use of the word, but also tackle it intellectually, and test its credibility, even from a minority point of view. I hold the term to be much broader than what we normally perceive to be. Of course it doesn't encompass everything, as Sputnik rightly points out, but it does encompass much more than 1974, much more than something which is done and over some 40 years ago.

[Zappathustra]

Beware of the prog neo-cons!

oh, there was never any need for that, not even when I was 16.

[bondegezou]

indeed! I always understood "prog" to be short for "progressive Rock music" but there are people who want "prog" to exclude a huge amount of progressive Rock music that was a big part of the advent of that era. If "prog" is just "Symphonic Rock" then call it that and people will know that you are talking about music made in the 70s by white guys only and copied over and over since. Progressive Rock music was a phenomenon that was started by artists of all colors and musical backgrounds in the late 60s-early 70s. It was comprised of the mixing of many styles of music with Rock music. Taking the backbeat style of rhythm that set Rock and Roll apart as a separate musical genre in the 50s and blending it with Classical, Jazz and Folk. Both Jazz musicians and black musicians had a huge part in taking Rock music to "progressive", new places in the late 60s-early 70s and *that* is the Progressive Rock that I experienced. The weenies who would push all that musical heritage aside to put their "prog" in a tiny little box have made many artists explicitly distance themselves from any connections to "prog".

If "prog" is just Symphonic Rock then there's nothing progressive about it; just call it Symph cause that represents only a fraction of the legacy of the late 60s-early 70s spirit of progressive Rock music.

That music you describe, "Taking the backbeat style of rhythm that set Rock and Roll apart as a separate musical genre in the 50s and blending it with Classical, Jazz and Folk", did indeed involve many "Jazz musicians and black musicians [who] had a huge part in taking Rock music to "progressive", new places in the late 60s-early 70s". I do not disagree with your description of history. I merely contend that most people don't call that diversity of music all "prog" or "progressive rock". For example, I'd call some of that music "(jazz) fusion". I'd call some of it "psychedelia".

So I think it's very important to talk about that broader range of music and the people who made it, and to note that they were not just white, English boys. I think it's important to talk about the influence of that music on the white, English boys who did what you call "symphonic rock". The "traditional" prog bands, from Yes to Soft Machine, were hugely influenced by the likes of Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis, among many others. I am fully behind your frequent repetition of those points: they warrant frequent repetition.

But I think it is a disservice to that broader range of artists to insist this is all "progressive rock" and quixotic to insist everyone else stop using "prog" in its common parlance.

Henry

[bondegezou]

But no, he was very specific about Prog being something that happened in 1974.

[...]

But there is always a time when we should try to establish the truth, or our notion of it. Just because some dork journalists decided some 40 years ago to pigeonhole progressive rock as Yes, Genesis and ELP only so as to be able to slander it more efficiently, it doesn't mean that we have to reproduce their false interpretation of the term. Of course one needs to accept the predominant use of the word, but also tackle it intellectually, and test its credibility, even from a minority point of view. I hold the term to be much broader than what we normally perceive to be. Of course it doesn't encompass everything, as Sputnik rightly points out, but it does encompass much more than 1974, much more than something which is done and over some 40 years ago.

I apologise if I expressed myself poorly. I don't believe prog is something that happened only in 1974. That was a rhetorical flourish.

There are people making prog music today. I am surrounded by CDs of prog music made later than 1974, including from this year.

However, it is my view that "prog" is generally used to describe a genre that had its heyday around 1969-1979. I don't mean all prog was made then. I don't mean all good music was made then. I don't mean experimental music rooted in rock forms was all made then. I mean "prog" as a socio-cultural phenomena peaked then. There is oodles of music I would call "prog" being made today. There is oodles of music that is influenced by prog, but has moved beyond prog, being made today. We should champion all that music.

Last gig I went to was Firefly Burning, a minimalist avant-pop alt-folk ensemble -- that's how they describe themselves. I'll come here, to PE.com, and talk about them as if they are prog, because I think people here will like them. I don't think it benefits their promotion to talk about them as "prog" more generally. They are of 2018, not 1974. They have their own influences and development. They are largely part of a difference socio-cultural/musical milieu.

Henry