Defining Prog
- Minnie the Minx
- funky thigh collector
- Posts: 33546
- Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
- Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South
Re: Defining Prog
Bowie jerk off threads, you say?
*joins the slumber party*
*joins the slumber party*
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Flower wrote:I just did a google search.
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32516
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Defining Prog
Minnie Cheddars wrote:Bowie jerk off threads, you say?
*joins the slumber party*
LOL, I knew as soon as you replied, you would not let that one slide.
- Rorschach
- Posts: 4118
- Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
- Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south
Re: Defining Prog
Matt Wilson wrote:
You're not going to find a short little definition that satisfies everyone.
I realise that. That's why I'm asking what people's individual criteria are.
There were a lot of comments on the Prog top 20 thread claiming that some suggestions weren't really prog. Obviously people disagreed with each other and I'm curious to see what made individuals decide that something was or wasn't prog. Why are three Tull albums prog and the others not? Why are Pink Floyd prog and why aren't they?
I think that the basics seem to be highly technical/skilful musicianship, complex time signatures, long songs and lyrics that are, shall we say, secondary. But I'm assuming it's more nuanced than that.
Bugger off.
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32516
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Defining Prog
Rorschach wrote:
I think that the basics seem to be highly technical/skilful musicianship, complex time signatures, long songs and lyrics that are, shall we say, secondary. But I'm assuming it's more nuanced than that.
That's actually not a bad beginning definition! It doesn't encompass everything, of course, but then no pithy little single sentence would. The lyricists might take umbrage about the 'secondary' part, natch.
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32516
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Defining Prog
Look at the top bands in our poll: Yes, Genesis, Crimson, Floyd, Tull. What do they have in common? That's what prog sounds like. The issue some have with Tull not being really a prog band is the fact that they recorded so much folky music, but since "Folk-prog" is a category of prog, then Tull get shoe-horned in with the rest of them. Not really sure what the issue with Floyd is to be honest. The songs are slow, and not difficult to play? Too psychedelic? The run of records from Meddle through The Wall are cornerstones of '70s prog to these ears. Hell, I might even include Atom Heart Mother.
- Hightea
- Posts: 4364
- Joined: 16 Apr 2015, 02:18
- Location: NY state
Re: Defining Prog
Matt Wilson wrote: 'Defining garage rock?' or 'Defining punk?'
Two more genre with no specific definition.
Are Punk and New Wave related? How does the Talking Heads have anything in common with the Ramones except they both played CBGB's? I could argue that TH have more in common with prog then Punk.
Good luck defining the bands that are garage rock.
Just like prog except for about 10 or 15 bands its all debatable.
Hey I'm not saying my definition of prog is correct its changed so many times over the past 30 years. The subgenre are exactly that and doesn't mean those bands in the subgenre weren't other things too.
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32516
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Defining Prog
What is Punk? is always an interesting discussion. It usually boils down to the Ramones/Sex Pistols ideal of short, fast guitar songs. Some people think it has to sound like that to be punk. Others include bands like Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith, etc. because they played to the same crowds, were written about in the same magazines, etc.
I like the latter definition better, frankly. Ever make a punk comp? It's get's old listening to thirty songs in a row all with the same tempo.
I like the latter definition better, frankly. Ever make a punk comp? It's get's old listening to thirty songs in a row all with the same tempo.
- Rorschach
- Posts: 4118
- Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
- Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south
Re: Defining Prog
Matt Wilson wrote:What is Punk? is always an interesting discussion. It usually boils down to the Ramones/Sex Pistols ideal of short, fast guitar songs. Some people think it has to sound like that to be punk. Others include bands like Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith, etc. because they played to the same crowds, were written about in the same magazines, etc.
I like the latter definition better, frankly.
I think the British perspective on this may be different from the American one as British punk was a much more restrictive genre.
Before what we now call 'punk' came to be a thing, we used to use the same term for American garage bands of the 60s and I remember being a bit annoyed when they first started bandying the term around for new stuff that was coming from the States. (I even remember it being applied to Nils Lofgren at one point).
But in terms of American music of the late 70s, it basically became applied to the GBGBs bands, including Blondie.
However, in the UK, the explosion of punk bands had a much narrower focus. Richard Hell's clothes became the uniform (or Yomptempi's, depending on whom you believe) and the music became an angrier, confrontational version of 53rd and 3rd, off the Ramones first album. It defined itself more as what it was against than what it was for: anti-prog, anti-musicianship, anti-pop, anti-establishment, etc.; even though there were plenty of decent musicians and quite a lot of pop sensibility in some bands.
But because of this, I don't think any British music fan would use the word 'punk' to talk about the CBGBs crowd, with the possible exception of Ramones. So, the first definition you mention.
To be honest, I'm not sure what I/we would call the other American bands of this period.
Bugger off.
-
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05
Re: Defining Prog
I have been confronting (in a very mild way) my view of prog. I would never have put Dark side of the moon or Wish you were here, let alone the Wall, in the prog category. These are straightforward rock albums.
Ummagumma is more like what I think of as prog.
I can see why tubular bells is called prog, sort of, but it is a million miles away from Yes, whom I think of the epitome of prog.
I also think their records are largely unlistenable, even if they play their instruments well, and have too many memories of pretentious turds saying how great they were to really give them even limited dues.
Ummagumma is more like what I think of as prog.
I can see why tubular bells is called prog, sort of, but it is a million miles away from Yes, whom I think of the epitome of prog.
I also think their records are largely unlistenable, even if they play their instruments well, and have too many memories of pretentious turds saying how great they were to really give them even limited dues.
- Rorschach
- Posts: 4118
- Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
- Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south
Re: Defining Prog
Positive Passion wrote:I also think their records are largely unlistenable, even if they play their instruments well, and have too many memories of pretentious turds saying how great they were to really give them even limited dues.
More or less my position, but I'm playing nice because I'm genuinely curious to see how fans of the genre define it for themselves.
So far, Matt's the only one who's even tried to answer the questions but maybe some others are still thinking about it...
Bugger off.
- robertff
- Posts: 12074
- Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 06:59
Re: Defining Prog
Here is my attempt at clarity in answer to Matt, regarding the difference between progressive and prog, originally posted on Reap Corner a couple of weeks ago - with a little extra added in.
In the late 60s and early 70s you could walk into record shops and they would have records in various sections as many still do, so there might have been pop, blues, jazz, etc. and one that started to creep in was underground. Underground came about as an amalgam of the British Blues Boom and psychedelia. Anything really that John Peel wanted to play on his Perfumed Garden radio programme really. In this section you might find bands find bands like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Family, Tyrannosaurus Rex,Ten Years After, early Jethro Tull, Taste, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, Keef Hartley Band, Colosseum, Pink Floyd etc.
However, underground fairly quickly mutated into progressive, perhaps as a result of a number of record labels starting to put progressive on the spines of record covers I guess to help stockists and the music press. So these bands then became progressive because they were being experimental in their approach. As an example, the first two Fleetwood Mac albums would have been listed under Blues, or even Pop as they sold well, but the third would have been under the term progressive because they took the music beyond straight blues, it went further than the blues, it progressed, so it was progressive.The first two Yes albums were progressive, same as the first two King Crimson albums, the first three Jethro Tull albums, John Mayall's Bare Wires and Laurel Canyon, Floyd's Atom Heart Mother, TYA's Ssssh, Free's albums, Atomic Rooster's first couple, Arthur Brown's Kingdom Come, Groundhog's Thank Christ and Split, Led Zep's albums, Beefheart's albums, Sabs', Deep Purple's, Fairport's, all these would have been termed progressive, although after a while some of them mutated into other genres but for a while there they were progressive.
The 'Prog' nomenclature really came into its own around the time of The Yes Album, when music was taken to another more complicated, symphonic level, with much longer tracks, allowing musicians the freedom to experiment and develop instrumentation to a higher degree, it was an extension of progressive music. The Nice were progressive but ELP became prog which is a pretty good example. Close To The Edge was prog, the Yes Album would still just have come under the banner of progressive. Aqualung was progressive, TAAB became prog.
Incidentally and curiously, the term prog did not exist when the first two King Crimson albums were released but they are both firmly prog albums - very probably the very first to fit easily under that particular nomenclature, although an argument could easily be made for Sgt. Pepper.
I don't know if this helps, but, briefly and hurriedly, this is how I understand the two terms and I believe C. and I understand it in the same way, he might shed more light. Others of course might completely disagree but this is how I remember it to be. Over the decades the two terms progressive and prog appear to have intertwined and almost become one but those of us who were there will know the difference.
.
In the late 60s and early 70s you could walk into record shops and they would have records in various sections as many still do, so there might have been pop, blues, jazz, etc. and one that started to creep in was underground. Underground came about as an amalgam of the British Blues Boom and psychedelia. Anything really that John Peel wanted to play on his Perfumed Garden radio programme really. In this section you might find bands find bands like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Family, Tyrannosaurus Rex,Ten Years After, early Jethro Tull, Taste, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, Keef Hartley Band, Colosseum, Pink Floyd etc.
However, underground fairly quickly mutated into progressive, perhaps as a result of a number of record labels starting to put progressive on the spines of record covers I guess to help stockists and the music press. So these bands then became progressive because they were being experimental in their approach. As an example, the first two Fleetwood Mac albums would have been listed under Blues, or even Pop as they sold well, but the third would have been under the term progressive because they took the music beyond straight blues, it went further than the blues, it progressed, so it was progressive.The first two Yes albums were progressive, same as the first two King Crimson albums, the first three Jethro Tull albums, John Mayall's Bare Wires and Laurel Canyon, Floyd's Atom Heart Mother, TYA's Ssssh, Free's albums, Atomic Rooster's first couple, Arthur Brown's Kingdom Come, Groundhog's Thank Christ and Split, Led Zep's albums, Beefheart's albums, Sabs', Deep Purple's, Fairport's, all these would have been termed progressive, although after a while some of them mutated into other genres but for a while there they were progressive.
The 'Prog' nomenclature really came into its own around the time of The Yes Album, when music was taken to another more complicated, symphonic level, with much longer tracks, allowing musicians the freedom to experiment and develop instrumentation to a higher degree, it was an extension of progressive music. The Nice were progressive but ELP became prog which is a pretty good example. Close To The Edge was prog, the Yes Album would still just have come under the banner of progressive. Aqualung was progressive, TAAB became prog.
Incidentally and curiously, the term prog did not exist when the first two King Crimson albums were released but they are both firmly prog albums - very probably the very first to fit easily under that particular nomenclature, although an argument could easily be made for Sgt. Pepper.
I don't know if this helps, but, briefly and hurriedly, this is how I understand the two terms and I believe C. and I understand it in the same way, he might shed more light. Others of course might completely disagree but this is how I remember it to be. Over the decades the two terms progressive and prog appear to have intertwined and almost become one but those of us who were there will know the difference.
.
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32516
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Defining Prog
Rorschach wrote:Matt Wilson wrote:What is Punk? is always an interesting discussion. It usually boils down to the Ramones/Sex Pistols ideal of short, fast guitar songs. Some people think it has to sound like that to be punk. Others include bands like Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith, etc. because they played to the same crowds, were written about in the same magazines, etc.
I like the latter definition better, frankly.
I think the British perspective on this may be different from the American one as British punk was a much more restrictive genre.
Before what we now call 'punk' came to be a thing, we used to use the same term for American garage bands of the 60s and I remember being a bit annoyed when they first started bandying the term around for new stuff that was coming from the States. (I even remember it being applied to Nils Lofgren at one point).
But in terms of American music of the late 70s, it basically became applied to the GBGBs bands, including Blondie.
However, in the UK, the explosion of punk bands had a much narrower focus. Richard Hell's clothes became the uniform (or Yomptempi's, depending on whom you believe) and the music became an angrier, confrontational version of 53rd and 3rd, off the Ramones first album. It defined itself more as what it was against than what it was for: anti-prog, anti-musicianship, anti-pop, anti-establishment, etc.; even though there were plenty of decent musicians and quite a lot of pop sensibility in some bands.
But because of this, I don't think any British music fan would use the word 'punk' to talk about the CBGBs crowd, with the possible exception of Ramones. So, the first definition you mention.
To be honest, I'm not sure what I/we would call the other American bands of this period.
Yep, all true. But writers in the States called garage rock "punk" in the early seventies as well. See Nuggets, et al. And New York's Punk magazine started in Jan. 1976 and it routinely contained articles about all the CBGBs bands including the ones you mentioned above. What is or what was not 'punk' wasn't nearly so regimented here.
- C
- Robust
- Posts: 78998
- Joined: 22 Jul 2003, 19:06
Re: Defining Prog
Rorschach wrote:Why are three Tull albums prog and the others not?
I think that the basics seem to be highly technical/skilful musicianship, complex time signatures, long songs and lyrics that are, shall we say, secondary. But I'm assuming it's more nuanced than that.
Regarding the Tull albums you need to listen to one of their prog albums (say Thick as a Brick) and one of their progressive albums (say Benefit)
I am sure you will instantly hear the difference.
Regarding levels of musicianship - it was similar on both the albums above. The rhythm section changed the bass declined and the tubs improved. To be honest that's not so relevant - obviously you need to know one end of a guitar to the other - that's obvious but the increased complexities as Matt suggested - that is of greater significance
Again, yes prog songs tended to be long(er) but non-prog songs could be long too
Robff defined the difference well and the historical timeline.
But I can't recall where he posted it!
I think it is fair to say that it is no big deal whether it is prog or progressive or something else.
I am sure the group of folk around these parts that care the least are the prog goons themselves.
It's not really that important Tym
.
Lord Rother wrote:And there was me thinking you'd say "Fair enough, you have a point Bob".
- robertff
- Posts: 12074
- Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 06:59
Re: Defining Prog
C wrote:Rorschach wrote:Why are three Tull albums prog and the others not?
I think that the basics seem to be highly technical/skilful musicianship, complex time signatures, long songs and lyrics that are, shall we say, secondary. But I'm assuming it's more nuanced than that.
Regarding the Tull albums you need to listen to one of their prog albums (say Thick as a Brick) and one of their progressive albums (say Benefit)
I am sure you will instantly hear the difference.
Regarding levels of musicianship - it was similar on both the albums above. The rhythm section changed the bass declined and the tubs improved. To be honest that's not so relevant - obviously you need to know one end of a guitar to the other - that's obvious but the increased complexities as Matt suggested - that is of greater significance
Again, yes prog songs tended to be long(er) but non-prog songs could be long too
Robff defined the difference well and the historical timeline.
But I can't recall where he posted it!
I think it is fair to say that it is no big deal whether it is prog or progressive or something else.
I am sure the group of folk around these parts that care the least are the prog goons themselves.
It's not really that important Tym
.
A couple of posts above yours C! ^^^^^^^^^^^
.
- C
- Robust
- Posts: 78998
- Joined: 22 Jul 2003, 19:06
Re: Defining Prog
robertff wrote:C wrote:Rorschach wrote:Why are three Tull albums prog and the others not?
I think that the basics seem to be highly technical/skilful musicianship, complex time signatures, long songs and lyrics that are, shall we say, secondary. But I'm assuming it's more nuanced than that.
Regarding the Tull albums you need to listen to one of their prog albums (say Thick as a Brick) and one of their progressive albums (say Benefit)
I am sure you will instantly hear the difference.
Regarding levels of musicianship - it was similar on both the albums above. The rhythm section changed the bass declined and the tubs improved. To be honest that's not so relevant - obviously you need to know one end of a guitar to the other - that's obvious but the increased complexities as Matt suggested - that is of greater significance
Again, yes prog songs tended to be long(er) but non-prog songs could be long too
Robff defined the difference well and the historical timeline.
But I can't recall where he posted it!
I think it is fair to say that it is no big deal whether it is prog or progressive or something else.
I am sure the group of folk around these parts that care the least are the prog goons themselves.
It's not really that important Tym
.
A couple of posts above yours C! ^^^^^^^^^^^
.
I'm not that senile Rob [yet! ]
Just this degree of senility:
robertff wrote:originally posted on Reap Corner a couple of weeks ago
Lord Rother wrote:And there was me thinking you'd say "Fair enough, you have a point Bob".
- The Slider
- Self-Aggrandising Cock
- Posts: 48262
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:05
- Location: I'm only here for the sneer
- Contact:
- Hightea
- Posts: 4364
- Joined: 16 Apr 2015, 02:18
- Location: NY state
Re: Defining Prog
robertff wrote:Here is my attempt at clarity in answer to Matt, regarding the difference between progressive and prog, originally posted on Reap Corner a couple of weeks ago - with a little extra added in.
In the late 60s and early 70s you could walk into record shops and they would have records in various sections as many still do, so there might have been pop, blues, jazz, etc. and one that started to creep in was underground. Underground came about as an amalgam of the British Blues Boom and psychedelia. Anything really that John Peel wanted to play on his Perfumed Garden radio programme really. In this section you might find bands find bands like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Family, Tyrannosaurus Rex,Ten Years After, early Jethro Tull, Taste, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, Keef Hartley Band, Colosseum, Pink Floyd etc.
However, underground fairly quickly mutated into progressive, perhaps as a result of a number of record labels starting to put progressive on the spines of record covers I guess to help stockists and the music press. So these bands then became progressive because they were being experimental in their approach. As an example, the first two Fleetwood Mac albums would have been listed under Blues, or even Pop as they sold well, but the third would have been under the term progressive because they took the music beyond straight blues, it went further than the blues, it progressed, so it was progressive.The first two Yes albums were progressive, same as the first two King Crimson albums, the first three Jethro Tull albums, John Mayall's Bare Wires and Laurel Canyon, Floyd's Atom Heart Mother, TYA's Ssssh, Free's albums, Atomic Rooster's first couple, Arthur Brown's Kingdom Come, Groundhog's Thank Christ and Split, Led Zep's albums, Beefheart's albums, Sabs', Deep Purple's, Fairport's, all these would have been termed progressive, although after a while some of them mutated into other genres but for a while there they were progressive.
The 'Prog' nomenclature really came into its own around the time of The Yes Album, when music was taken to another more complicated, symphonic level, with much longer tracks, allowing musicians the freedom to experiment and develop instrumentation to a higher degree, it was an extension of progressive music. The Nice were progressive but ELP became prog which is a pretty good example. Close To The Edge was prog, the Yes Album would still just have come under the banner of progressive. Aqualung was progressive, TAAB became prog.
Incidentally and curiously, the term prog did not exist when the first two King Crimson albums were released but they are both firmly prog albums - very probably the very first to fit easily under that particular nomenclature, although an argument could easily be made for Sgt. Pepper.
I don't know if this helps, but, briefly and hurriedly, this is how I understand the two terms and I believe C. and I understand it in the same way, he might shed more light. Others of course might completely disagree but this is how I remember it to be. Over the decades the two terms progressive and prog appear to have intertwined and almost become one but those of us who were there will know the difference.
.
You remind me of this Seinfeld
Just like Eric the clown says your living in the 60's(although should be the 70's for this prog talk)
The term doesn't have to do with what some radio guy said in the early 70's or what you thought prog was in the early 70's. I lived it too and know the difference. You can't use a term before most of it actually happened. The term punk was started in the 60's if we kept that definition punk of the 70's would have included plenty of bands in the 70's that weren't what we consider Punk. The term Punk meant something else in the 70's the definition changed just like prog did by 1980.
Although it’s all an opinion , I’ll stick to mine. Thanks
Last edited by Hightea on 28 Oct 2021, 02:18, edited 2 times in total.
- Rorschach
- Posts: 4118
- Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
- Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south
- ConnyOlivetti
- Probing The Sonic Heritage
- Posts: 10588
- Joined: 06 Nov 2003, 07:14
- Location: Below The North Pole
- Contact:
Re: Defining Prog
When did the term "Prog" first appeared?
Surely very late, around the 90s or so (happy to be proved wrong)
In Sweden the big groups (Yes, Genesis, Elp and other)
was called Symphonic Rock at the time.
Surely very late, around the 90s or so (happy to be proved wrong)
In Sweden the big groups (Yes, Genesis, Elp and other)
was called Symphonic Rock at the time.
Charlie O. wrote:I think Coan and Googa are right.
Un enfant dans electronica!
Je suis!