WHAT is classic prog?

[DGuitarist]

I'm in a classic progressive rock tribute band. I posted a year ago when we were looking for a lead vocalist, and keyboardist. We've found both.

But what is classic progressive rock, to you?
Is it only certain bands?
Is it certain songs, and not others by those same bands?
Or is it the theory of stacking numerous musical styles together to create something new, which any band can do - and any band could therefore, have a prog song and not be considered a prog band?

We discussing which bands we should cover, and which we shouldn't. Your input is most appreciated.

So far it's:

Yes
Genesis
Rush
ELP
Gentle Giant
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
King Crimson
U.K.
Jethro Tull

and many others are being discussed...

[Facelift]

I'm not sure I really understand your dilemma. The "on-it's-face" definition of "classic progressive rock" would seem to be anything from the '70s or maybe even early '80s that was fairly well-known.

As for whether or not you need to stick 100% to those parameters... that would purely be a matter of preference on your part, I think. Throwing in two or three tunes that are either newer or more obscure prog, or are classic rock but not necessarily "prog" should not disappoint the majority of the audience for "classic prog," I would think.

[iguana]

classic progressive rock is whatever you make it to be. it’s not “classical” as in tied to a specific era. if you choose to bash out an iT BiTES tune, it is just as valid as doing “firth of fifth”.

[Facelift]

classic progressive rock is whatever you make it to be. it’s not “classical” as in tied to a specific era. if you choose to bash out an iT BiTES tune, it is just as valid as doing “firth of fifth”.

If the term is going to be purely subjective, then there's no point in having the word there at all. I thought the idea was to give the audience some kind of idea about what they were going to hear.

[No Pride]

Being that it's not likely to be a very lucrative proposition, I think you should play whatever you guys want to play.

I don't consider Rush, PF or Zep to be prog, but others do, so you be the judge.

BTW, I was in a Gentle Giant tribute band for a short while and that's some hard stuff to play (and memorize)! Be prepared to rehearse a lot if you plan to tackle that stuff!

[Rufus]

Have you played any gigs yet, & if so what was the feedback from the songs you covered ?

[DGuitarist]

Being that it's not likely to be a very lucrative proposition, I think you should play whatever you guys want to play.

I don't consider Rush, Pink Floyd, or Zeppelin to be prog, but others do, so you be the judge.

BTW, I was in a Gentle Giant tribute band for a short while and that's some hard stuff to play (and memorize)! Be prepared to rehearse a lot if you plan to tackle that stuff!

Free Hand. Yes, it is.

[DGuitarist]

Have you played any gigs yet, & if so what was the feedback from the songs you covered ?

It's taken some time to find new, talented band members who were really serious about the music, and the band as a business. The few gigs we played previously went over better than we would have imagined, so we must be doing something right.

[JKL2000]

I don't consider Rush, PF or Zep to be prog, but others do, so you be the judge.

How can you not consider stuff like (to name a few) Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun, Astronime Domine, Echoes, Atom Heart Mother, or One of These Days to be prog? If you don't consider that stuff to be prog, how can you consider ITCOTCK to be prog? Just wonderin'.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

what is classic progressive rock, to you?

Classic implies the formative years to me. Back then, there were many artists of various colors, cultures and musical backgrounds doing capital P Progressive things with Rock music. The list you made are merely the classic Symph style bands from England, but IMO the Italian Symph scene (PFM, Banco, etc.) was far superior to the English. The best English Prog IMO is the Canterbury style (Egg, Hatfield, etc.), and although there were some bands in the USA doing Symph style Prog (Kansas, Happy the Man, etc.), I think that the best American Prog music came from the Jazz musicians who were doing Progressive things with Rock music; often called Fusion (Return To Forever, 11th House, etc.). But in America, the cultural 'melting pot' that it is, there were African American and Latino American artists doing wonderfully Progressive things with Rock music as well (Mandrill, Santana, etc.). Then there was the South American scene which mostly copied the Symph style, but there were bands like Los Jaivas and Nazca and Arturo Meza who added a dose of Latin and Native American heritage to their Prog. Then there's the German Spacerock scene called Krautrock and Kosmische style Prog (Ash Ra, Agitation Free, etc.). Also, the French Zuehl scene (Magma, Eskaton, etc.)

In the final analysis, all of the styles of Prog listed above have certain common denominators:
Always having a connection to Rock music (such as backbeat style drumming and electric instruments, especially Synthesizers) Often but not always longer compositions than the radio Rock format (4 minutes) often incorporating virtuosic compositional twists and turns, sometimes with 'movements' in a 'suite' style of writing and/or sometimes with a morphing compositional style. Often but not always odd time signatures are employed. That is Prog in a nutshell... basically everything that is discussed here at P.E.

One thing it never was in the 70s. It was never linked to just one country or continent and the musicians that were doing capital P Progressive things with Rock music were always of various colors and musical backgrounds. They may be more homogenous nowadays but they weren't back in the formative years.

[DGuitarist]

We will probably get more diverse over time. I would love to eventually play some CAN, and maybe even some Radiohead - but can't guarantee the rest to of the band will be into that as much as I would be. Who knows? Maybe if the response keeps growing, we will, as well.

I absolutely agree that prog can be much more than just the "known" bands. Even though it was more simplistic, Bowie's Berlin-era, and even some Talking Heads cuts from Fear of Music, or Remain In Light were pretty damned proggy. "The Great Curve" with all of the Eno-ed multiple vocal lines plus Belew's animal leads squarely put it in "almost Crimson-esque" categories.

That's closer to what prog became, as it is always evolving. Or should.

I know people scream and bitch about Led Zeppelin NOT being prog but if you describe Zeppelin with one of their most accurate labels - as the "heaviest folk band ever," then they're definitely in the camp as much as Pink Floyd is. And ELP had "Are You Ready Eddy?" and Pink Floyd had "Seamus" - both rather traditional blues song stylings done by "prog bands."

Blues were a huge influence in many of those early bands. Jethro Tull was blues and folk, long before parodying prog with TAAB. And Floyd was psychedelic, not exactly prog with classically-influenced structures, more like Syd's Mandrax freak-outs forcing collective band improvisation over an unending, all-night G chord! You'd get good at improvisation too, if you had no choice.

No, it's a grey area, and should remain so. Prog is almost more about a band's intent than the actual music.

[notallwhowander]

Okay, progressive rock was a movement, a kind of zeitgeist, that followed a template laid down by The Beatles. A band of rock musicians were responsible for writing their own music, and expected to develop and expand their musical horizons with each album. Their sound in 1971 would be different than their sound in 1969.

The classic progressive rock bands were the first generation of (mainly) British/European rock bands in the post-Beatles era (the 1970's, particularly the early 1970s) which really pushed the limits of pop music beyond the narrow confines of the three-minute pop song, preferring the 33⅓rpm long-play record format over 45rpm single record format. These limits were pushed not only by writing longer pop songs, but incorporating music ideas and instrumentation from a wide range of sources: classical, jazz, world music, psychedelia, avant-garde, and the emerging electronic music traditions.

[Homburg]

It's loose of course. Best to go by a general consensus of what would be understood by the term, rather than any one individual's precious theory about what is or isn't prog.

Your list sounds good to me. Moody Blues, Camel, Barclay James Harvest, Van der Graaf, Mike Oldfield are other possibles.

[flowerking]

I would think its like "classic rock" but applied to prog. That implies to me two things: the era (say late 60s through mid 70s) and songs that specifically were somewhat more popular. But I don't think this would be a definition you would have to live by.

And like No Pride said, I wouldn't call Zep or Rush prog. Floyd is arguable.

[notallwhowander]

With Led Zeppelin, I think you can start getting pretty granular. They never moved too far from that blues-rock base. So, that's why many folks here don't see them as a prog band. But even saying that, they were as influenced by the times as anyone else. While Houses of the Holy wasn't Close to the Edge or Foxtrot, it was still the proggiest album Led Zeppelin ever made, and that progginess bleeds over into Led Zeppelin IV and Physical Graffiti a bit as well.

Rush definitely had a prog streak too. Argue all you want about the particulars of composition, Caress of Steel, 2112, A Farewell to Kings, and Hemispheres, all express that prog rock thing in greater or lesser degrees.

I think when people argue that Pink Floyd isn't prog, well, that's just cute.

As for your list, you've got more than enough for a few solid set lists with what you already have. But, Camel, imo, is an obvious omission, particularly anything off their first four or five albums.

[jlneudorf]

To original poster, classic prog can be attributed to all those bands, except maybe Zeppelin although they certainly had progressive tendencies. The age old debate of whether Floyd is progressive, or not, continues. The Wall, Animals, Meddle, Wish You Were Here and Dark Side are to me, stand outs of classic prog and should be remembered as such. "Saucer" and "Piper" may be more in the psychedelic vein but still had their proggier moments ("Astronomy Domine" and "Set The Controls For the Heart of the Sun" stand out in that regard). I also think Rush is progressive, although they had metal and classic rock elements as well. Albums like Hemispheres and 2112 are as progressive as it gets (IMHO). You can't go wrong playing a bit of Rush and Floyd.

Bottom line - classic prog is a real genre and began in the late '60s /early '70s. Newer bands cannot be considered classic prog (IMO). They may be influenced by them and play in a similar style but the term is time dependent (at least that is what I have always believed).

Regards,
Jon

[JKL2000]

I once saw a covers band in Syracuse circa 1982. They played stuff like Genesis and Supertramp. I forget what else they played, except they surprised me by playing a couple of songs by Saga. I knew the name Saga, and knew the songs they played (On the Loose, Wind Him Up), but didn't know those songs were by Saga. I guess my point is, you could play some Saga too, but IMO it'd be cooler to play older Saga like Humble Stance.

[jlneudorf]

I think early Supertramp could be considered classic prog, especially "Crime of the Century","Crisis, What Crisis" and "Quietest Moments".

Regards,
Jon

[rcarlberg]

We discussing which bands we should cover, and which we shouldn't.

Here's my advice:

Do songs you enjoy doing.

It'll show.

[JKL2000]

I'm classic prog, and so is my wife.

[DGuitarist]

I'm classic prog, and so is my wife.

Where's the proggy gonna gestate? - you gonna keep it in a box?

[DGuitarist]

Here's my advice:

Do songs you enjoy doing.

It'll show.

Yes. We know.

A band is also all about compromise - no one is going to like every song choice that the others will make.
So everybody can pick certain songs that are your "veto-proof" songs. And everybody has the same amount they can choose - so choose wisely.

You may suffer through this one, but they'll have to suffer through your next one.
it. keeps the piece.

[Vic2012]

I would think its like "classic rock" but applied to prog

That. I agree. It's the product of an era that's long gone. It's the Big 5,6,7,Whatever bands of that era from 1969 to 1977/8/whenever. I'd include Kansas in there as well, but probably not Styx.

[soblivious]

According to Steven Wilson we are.....(thanks Steven:-)
www.lifesigns.me

[No Pride]

How can you not consider stuff like (to name a few) Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun, Astronime Domine, Echoes, Atom Heart Mother, or One of These Days to be prog? If you don't consider that stuff to be prog, how can you consider ITCOTCK to be prog? Just wonderin'.

Well first of all, I'd have to figure out which of those tunes were done by which band (though I know at least some if not all of them are PF) and then I'd have to look them up. Then I'd have to answer the unanswerable question, "what is prog?" And I never claimed ITCotCK is prog. Hell, I haven't heard that album in 40 years. The earliest KC album I have is "Starless and Bible Black." By my criteria, a tune like "Fractured" is something I'd consider to be prog... whatever that is.

IMHO (which is every bit as subjective as the next guy's), prog has to have a certain degree of harmonic sophistication, among other things. I don't hear that in PF or LZ or Rush (despite Lifeson's cool chord voicings). But that's just one guy's opinion. It shouldn't matter to you; heck it doesn't really matter to me!

While were at it, I'm not sure what "classic" means either. But once I was listening to a "classic rock" radio station and the DJ provided me with a clue. He said, "and remember, it doesn't have to be good to be a classic."