Gotcha...wanted to take a crack at defining it, though.

dB

I would only add that your second definition applies to a genre, whereas your first definition applies more to an amateur and/or impromptu approach (as in ‘what are we gonna play?’, ‘don’t worry about it, we’ll just jam’).

That’s not to say that participants in the genre don’t participate or practice said impromptu approach, but they are not defined nor limited to that approach. (Also JamBands improvise as a group, as opposed to just holding it down behind a singular soloist.)

I would also add that most prog, not all, is characterized by a complete disregard and distaste for impromptu improvising, especially by a group!, even though it it’s quite obvious that much of that music is written by that approach; they just don’t perform that way. Prog rock generally is scripted, and adheres to the script (Think Pink Floyd, Rush, Yes, Genesis, etc.), although some radicals like King Crimson rebelled against that and did indeed take the jamband/jazz approach, and stretch and push and pull.

Definitely a good early example.

Other excellent early examples:

Procol Harum - "Conquistador" (1967)

Mothers of Invention - "Return of the Son of Monster Magnet" (1966)

The Who - "A Quick One While He's Away" (1966)

And of course, there's the more obvious stuff like Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn and the Moody Blues' Days of Future Passed in '67.

No doubt.


Good point. The solos are pretty much always exactly the same. Emerson and Wakeman varied theirs a bit here and there...but that was probably more because they'd forgotten what they did originally. I asked Emerson to show me a part from Pictures At An Exhibition, and he said he had no idea what he'd played....

dB

How would you guys define Indy rock?

The reason I ask is I went to see a friends show last night. The band describes themself as indy-rock. When I was watching them, I was thinking "yup....this sounds like indy-rock"

But I couldn't put my finger on what defines it. Kinda like a porn thing (I know it when I see it).


The closest definition I could come up with is "we really aren't that experienced with the instruments we play....but we're ok with that"

Indy rock = rock bands from Indianapolis.

You must be talking about "indie" rock, which is more like a smarmy, sarcastic take on pop music. They deliberately play their instruments as minimally as possible, and sneer at any display of musical prowess.

The plus side is, they really are all about the songwriting - but most of them aren't that good at it anyway.

Beat me to it. Alternately, bands that get run in the first round of the playoffs virtually every year...

Strictly speaking, indie rock would be a rock band signed to an Independent Label. If they're signed to Capitol/BMI or whatever, they aren't indie. And if they don't have a label at all, they aren't indie.

However, there was a surge in popularity of rock bands that were signed to some of these independent labels that kind of created the genre - and the name stuck. Basically they weren't polished enough to land a major label deal, but the popularity grew as kind of a counter-culture, mostly on the college scene.

I absolutely hate labels and classifications, but they are a necessary evil. One of my favorites:

Alternative

Rolling Stone used to list the Top 10 Alternative. Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Or to be #1 does that mean nobody has ever heard your song, not even you?

Now that I'm up on all the lingo, I think I'll get to work on a new Indie Trance Alternative project. (make that Adult Trance)

I'm glad you added that last bit because we all know that kiddie trance sucks big time.

Ok, this should be interesting:

Return To Forever's "Where Have I Known You Before" - Prog or Fusion?

What about the group "Bruford"? Prog or Fusion?

I ask because I think the lines were blurred at that point in time. I mean, I know Prog when I hear it, but if I go by some of the above definitions, then certain periods of RTF would qualify as Prog, even though I've only ever thought of them as Fusion.

'Ain't putting labels on music silly?

Fusion - because they came at it from a jazz background.


Prog - because they came at it from the rock direction.


Yep, I agree. A lot of bands came from different directions to occupy the same ground. You can add John McLaughlin and David Sancious to that list.


Yes!

True story about the first time I ever heard that term: When I was 15, I asked a girl what kind of music she liked, and she said "Alternative music." My completely sincere reply: "What does that mean? Instead of listening to music, you'd rather go do something else?"

Didn't date her long...

Alternative[/quote]

True story about the first time I ever heard that term: When I was 15, I asked a girl what kind of music she liked, and she said "Alternative music." My completely sincere reply: "What does that mean? Instead of listening to music, you'd rather go do something else?"
[/quote]

That's too funny!

regarding alternative, the same thing happened with comedy (alternative comedy).. but it kind of makes sense... If you think of what comedy was like prior to the late 60s it was a pretty tame affair.. whereas alternative comedy really pushed the boundaries about how we think... when I listen/watch the UK stuff from mid 60s like Frost Report with Cleese, Cook and Moore, its still funny as hell... and as for Python and Milligan on Q, thats something else again...

whereas stuff like Rowan and Martin simply never was funny to my mind..

orangefunk, your tastes in humor are the same as mine - I loved Cook and Moore, etc. I'm not sure that "alternative" has as much meaning as a musical category.

I just somehow picture two record store managers discussing how they categorize their displays. One says, "For all the stuff I don't know how to label, I just made a bin called alternative and throw them in there." The other manager says "Great idea!" and a genre was born. (no, not really)

I've never been a fan of the term "progressive rock", mainly because I don't believe music (as an art form, not mechanically) "progresses". "Progression" implies a destination - and is there an "end" to music (as an art form)? Will some composer emeritus issue a press release one day stating that "all the music has been written", and "there's no need to write or play anymore ... just head over to iTunes"?

No, music evolves, changing as its environment - its writers and audiences - changes. For what is called progressive rock, I like the term art rock instead. It implies music being written and performed for its own sake, rather than as a vehicle to pop stardom.

Plus I think it's a more inclusive term. You can put Yes, Zappa, Tool, and Dream Theater together as art rock bands/musicians, even though those bands/musicians may be wildly different, without the need for byzantine subgenres. (Prog is masturbatory enough ... sub-classification borders on OCD! :D)

Further, not all art rock bands make art rock all the time. Many of the classics - Yes, Rush, Genesis - went pop in the 80s. Zappa wrote pop tunes, too, almost all of them anachronisms because of his affection for doo-wop. Dream Theater burst onto the scene with a straight-up shred piece ("Pull Me Under") and has written several singles since.

What's more, pop artists can dip into art rock whenever they feel that pop is too limiting for something they want to do. It's rare - I don't see Miley Cyrus doing a long-form acid-'inspired' concept album anytime soon - but it's been known to happen a time or two. Love it or hate it, that whole R Kelly "R&B opera" In the Closet ... thing ... applies.
___

All that said, the article is HILARIOUS; good find, dB!

Good distinction, Jason. Music certainly evolves. The term "fusion" used to bother me some too, not because it isn't an accurate definition, but because it means existing style combinations instead of actual musical evolution.

And hey, I know I'm being overly purist and literal here, but to me, a new genre should earn the title, regardless of how dumb the term may sound (like jazz, bebop or rock.) For the meantime, we have the main basic idioms, and subgenres.

This is hilarious!!!!

Those are all still just record company categories for marketing, IMO. I'm still knocked out by the Hannah Montana 'concept album"

Categories and genres often end up being stupid names.

Pop - short for "popular," but can be used to describe music that isn't.
Modern - means current times. "Modern jazz" is "jazz as developed in the 1940s and 1950s, esp. bebop and the related music that followed it."
Alternative - (see comments in previous posts by others)

There are others.

Drawing lines between things like rock and hard rock and heavy metal is about as useless.

Over the ages, I've collected some mp3s of music I previously owned. The genre tag often has info that his funny and annoying. I often have to sweep thru iTunes to clean up this tag with stupid junk like Classic Rock, Oldies Rock, This Rock and That Rock. (I'd have better examples but I recently did this and blanked the bad ones from my mind.)

OTOH, when I want to tell you what an artist sounds like, it can give a handy point of reference.

For years, I categorized "progressive rockers" as jazz and classical wannabes trying to make some money while getting their act together for what they really wanted to do. Who would write semi-pop tunes and then throw in 7/4 cadenzas that had nothing to do with the tune itself... etc.
Lately, I'm kind of curious as to how those ELP, Yes and early King Crimson records that I heard in the early 70s would sound to my 2009 ears - maybe I was being unfair to them. After all, they WERE trying to do something different at the time, and quite often were very good players.

Labels themselves aren't necessarily silly, what's silly is thinking that the label tells us much about the music. They're OK for relating one thing to another, for getting a general handle. Anyway, that's a good question, Bruford, Brand X and some other bands are right on the edge. I think the difference is that jazz (and therefore fusion) is primarily improvisational. It may have composed sections, but it's defined by its improvisation. Bruford's songs have improvisation, but they're much more composed. RTF's tunes are more composed than is typical for jazz, but they're still coming from the standpoint of jazz language and harmony. Prog bands may incorporate those elements, but they don't "live in that land" the way RTF does.

anyone ever listen to "pronk"?

Here's an example -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw3aqbmhlr4

Wow, I'd heard of the Cardiacs, but this is the first I've heard. Kind of like Devo meets Gentle Giant. If I had heard this in 1984, I'd probably be a fan for life.

Never heard the term "Pronk" before. I somehow missed the Cardiacs first time around, but actually discovered them on here when somebody posted a link, maybe a year ago or so. I immediately ended up downloading a bunch of tunes from their web site. I find it ironic that they had to stop playing when their singer suffered cardiac problems.

In the immortal words of Keanu, "whoa ..."

Heh-heh, Gentle Giant.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/...3131&sr=8-1

Heh-heh. Butts/dongs.

Reminds me of Doors meet Zappa. But with better guitar solos.

<ducks>

There's definitely some Zappa in there but I don't hear anything remotely Doors-like.
BTW. I had never heard of the Cardiacs. That was a very cool song. I'll have to check out some more of their stuff.