What is prog and does it exist today?

[o0Ampy0o]

How do you define “recent” ?

 

Do you mean the band is new and currently creating music that fits the genre?

 

Do you mean the band is from any time and they are currently creating music that fits the genre?

 

One of the most prolific progressive rock bands still in the game is Marillion.  Broadcast radio turned its back on fresh rock music.  Napster laid the foundation for generations to feel they should not have to pay money for a product because they pay by being a fan of the product.  Marillion are as creative as ever writing and performing music. Marillion are not has-beens doing a form of Elvis in Vegas. They have lead the way building a model of sustenance through independence with self-promotion, crowd funding, staying alive and creating ways to keep and attract more fans.
 

Another great band mentioned here is IQ.

[EricBarker]

King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard.

 

Most of the bands listed here are older groups still kicking around, or newer groups that are basically rehashes of classic prog. But that's not really what prog rock is about, it's about pushing boundaries and breaking new ground. If a new band in 2023 sounds like 1972 Yes, they're not really being very progressive, are they?

 

King Gizz... maybe not the most virtuosic, maybe not the most intelligent, maybe they don't sound like prog. But holy shit do they exhibit the trail blazing courage of progrock bands in their heyday! Every album is a new experiment: seamless records, microtonal rock, composing by limitations, they're constantly throwing things at the wall and see if they stick. Sometimes they don't, sometimes they do. If that isn't Progressive Rock, I don't know what is!

[Tusker]

58 minutes ago, EricBarker said:

King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard.

This is so cool.  I’m very excited about checking these out. Thank you!

[BadLife]

Well that's how I look at it.  It has to push the boundaries if that is even possible.  But if it's not engaging and musical it's just noise.

[The Real MC]

There seems to be more mass acceptance to prog in Europe than in the US.  Quite a few Neo-prog groups today come from Europe.

[GRollins]

Looks like I’m coming in late on this. I'm short on time, but I’ll try to skim a few points on the fly...

 

Tusker,

I’m okay with your point about prog being a synthesis of rock and other forms of music, but I don’t see that it’ll get us far in defining prog. After all, rock itself is derived from blues, folk, etc., so it seems to me that the synthesis thing is redundant...of course prog is a synthesis of other forms...it’s rock.

 

Now, your point about mythical themes and so forth strikes me as more useful. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single “oh, baby, lie down, I think I love you” prog song. I’m not against that sort of thing, mind you—I adore Led Zeppelin, for instance—but it’s just not part of the prog mindset. On the other hand, a lot of prog lyrics are pretty random. Some are so abstract that it’s not clear what they’re about unless the person who wrote the song tells us what was on their mind—and frankly, even then I still have trouble seeing the putative message. It might be easier and more efficient just to make a much shorter list of what prog songs aren’t about: groupies and sex. Even then, I strongly suspect that there will be counterexamples.

 

“...Move popular rock music further than its normal boundaries.” I, for one, have railed against I-IV-V, 12-bar songs on more than one occasion. Speaking as a bass player, they’re boring, repetitive, and soul-deadening. Breaking out of that mold is part of what I find attractive about prog. But more about this later.

 

Prog vs. fusion jazz. Oi! This is a question I have wrestled with for years, nay, decades. Let me ask you this question: If you heard Return To Forever or Mahavishnu Orchestra without knowing that some of the musicians involved had jazz backgrounds (e.g. played with Miles Davis), would you still label the music as fusion “jazz?” I submit that the fusion jazz moniker was a back-formation by those who already knew that Chick Corea, for instance, had played with Davis. If Corea had simply dropped from the sky, would you still think of RTF as necessarily being “jazz?” Yes, possibly jazz influenced, but still… Think before you answer.

 

Another Scott,

You’re close to a point that I have made before—that prog filled arenas and got airplay because the economy was in the doldrums in the ‘70s. As the economy heated up, prog fell out of favor because people began seeking more frivolous music that they could dance to. Prog demands attention from the listener, dance music doesn’t.

 

Old No7,

“Keyboards.” Again, someone will probably pop up with a counterexample, but I can’t think of a prog band that doesn’t prominently feature some sort of keyboards. Synthesizers, specifically? Not sure about that, but keyboards, for sure.

 

CEB,

This has long been a source of frustration for me. At least where I lived, Yes and ELP were called classical rock, not prog. Jethro Tull wasn’t grouped with them at all, by anyone. While I can’t put a date on it, the first time I heard the term “prog” used to define a genre was, I think, in the ‘80s, more or less contemporary with the rise of “classic rock” radio stations. I always understood it to be a concession to those who were confused by the similarity of “classical” and “classic.” I distinctly remember being offended at the unnecessary rebranding of music I had known for years as classical rock. Some people claim to have heard the term prog earlier. All I can report is my experience: Han shot first.

 

Shamanzarek,

“Usually Prog implies a high level of musicianship.” Yeah, this I think I can go with. Prog ain’t for the guy who only knows three chords and plays all three of them badly. This ties with something I said in the Keith Emerson thread in that musicians with chops often like to stretch out and play at their limits. One of those limits frequently being speed, they might play fast once in a while. However, the high level might also indicate music theory, so you will also tend to find modes and unusual scales in prog and fusion jazz.

 

On the subject of pushing boundaries, which several people have mentioned…

This strikes me as problematic. The boundaries, however defined, were much closer and more confining back in the late ‘60s and ‘70s. The limits were easier to find. Now that those limits have been tested, the new boundaries are further away. What do you have to do in order to do something that no one has ever done before? A lot of the music I’ve heard that’s been suggested to me as prog is so far afield as to be literal noise. I don’t like it. Go back and listen to Yes or ELP. Melodies, carefully crafted. Counterpoint. Harmony. Whether someone likes it or not is a matter of personal taste, but you can’t deny that there’s music there. I am not persuaded that testing boundaries is necessary for music to be prog. If someone were to write something in the vein of Close To The Edge today, would it still be prog? I’d say absolutely. If someone says no, because there are no walls being broken down, then I have to question what they want from music. Just rule breaking? Is that really what prog is about? I remember when CTTE came out. I didn’t think, “Oh, goody, walls being broken down!” I thought, “Oh, holy shit! Will you listen to this music! Hear what Wakeman did there? Awesome!” Rap tested boundaries. Did that make it prog? No. For that matter, all rock was about breaking walls in the beginning. Does that mean that all rock was prog? No. I just don’t see boundaries as being a necessary condition for something to be prog. Similarly, I feel that a lot of “classical” music that was written over the last century is garbage. Just noise. People decry the lack of support for classical music—it’s because a lot of it was written purely to “push boundaries.” Well...mission accomplished, but the result is unlistenable. The best “classical” music written over the last century was created for movie soundtracks, but the music itself has legs. It’s beautiful. It just plain works. And it gets listened to far more often in concert halls because it’s real.

 

Another thought I’d like to offer:

In prog, all instruments get a chance to play. The long-suffering bass player isn’t shoved against the back wall. The keyboards aren’t restricted to one or two polite fills between verses. The guitar isn’t bound to playing only chords during the verses. Everybody gets a chance to do something non-trivial.

 

I had another thought, but it slipped away before I could get it down. If I’m a Lucky Man, it’ll come back to me in a Roundabout way...

 

Grey

[timwat]

One might consider that the musicians creating this music many of us love weren't deliberately thinking of any of these categories or descriptions. They were playing music they found interesting, trying to create something that was new, novel, and established their own voice. Many came from classical backgrounds, many had admirable or superlative technique - and so they brought that as part of their toolbox. I resonated with that because I was coming from 10 years of classical music.

 

Pink Floyd didn't create overtly technical music like Yes because...they didn't possess the technical palette the latter band did. Of course it didn't mean the music is any less impactful, or lasting, or valuable. But they were trying to push and make new in different ways than Emerson melding his classical repertoire with Hammond and Moog.

 

Back in the late '70's when I was in high school, prog was alive and healthy. And at least in my circles anecdotally, it was mostly about the "progress" in "progressive". Were they trying something new? Was there something in there we hadn't heard before? Was there depth? Did it reward repeated listening? I still remember the Eagles "Already Gone" (On the Border) was released the same time as King Crimson "Starless" (Red). There were kids in my school who were all about Eagles and Journey. And there were those of us who were discovering King Crimson and Van Der Graaf Generator, and live "Watcher of the Skies" on the King Biscuit Flower Hour. Back in those days, there was the typical high school "mutual derision" over music preferences. So silly and stupid and tribal.

 

I devoured Return to Forever right alongside Pawn Hearts. Yes, the music was clearly different from each other. But there was more in common to my ears and, more importantly, my heart - between them - and a lot more in contrast to the Eagles, Journey, Kiss, and Fleetwood Mac.

 

Is there what I guess we're calling "pushing of boundaries" in this thread. To me that was the underlying push and attraction.

 

Nowadays, it feels like a good portion of what some might call "new prog" is more derivative of what has come before - rather than stubbornly trying to do something new. A lot of homage, tribute, and nods to the past. While it is a nostalgic call back in many ways (in a similar way that Starcastle used a lot of the Yes palette back in the day), I sometimes hear new prog and wonder if the guys who used Mellotron back in the days would have still used that sound if they had the available options we have today. That's a useless aside.

 

I'm back to playing prog, myself. So yes, it still exists. A four-decades friend of mine has stubbornly stuck to producing prog, and has asked me to sit in on 2nd keys for his band's upcoming video project. It's been a long time since I dabbled in this genre. Lots of parts to learn, lots of different sounds to nail - even if I'm only covering 2nd chair. First rehearsal went well and they like my playing. And the band is all gray haired, receding hairlines and overweight...just like my experience at the recent Steve Hackett concert hahahahaha

 

His band's disc is apparently #1 on the prog charts at present...it's more melodic song-oriented prog than technical show off prowess stuff. I joke with him that having the #1 record on some prog chart is like having the most popular release for 15 people.

 

With this thread, maybe it's 17.

 

[CowboyNQ]

Prog rock is most certainly alive and well.

 

I’m far from an expert on the topic, but my friend Matt is one of Australia’s leading thinkers on the subject.

 

The attached podcast covers a bit of the history and philosophy behind prog.  If you’re interested, you can watch from 40:00 to get Matt’s views on “modern” prog rock.

 

Also, from 49:40 Matt recommends a few current prog keys players worth investigating.

 

 

 

[Iconoclast]

I already rang in on half this subject; Does Prog Exist Today? And my answer is enthusiastically, yes! it absolutely does.

The more difficult subject is WHAT IS PROG?  Because while I was a huge fan of the easily defined-as-prog bands (Yes, Rush, Kansas, Jethro Tull, Styx etc.) I think a lot of us Prog-holes (progessive rock assholes, my typical tongue-in-cheek euphemism for prog fans encompassing their disdain for everything considered shallow) had a lot of the same records that weren't typical prog offerings.

Mahavishnu Orchestra, RTF, Al DiMeola, Steve Morse and/or the Dreggs: we all had these records in heavy rotation, but they weren't labelled prog?

So while not a black and white filter, I think there's a pointlist that, once a certain threshold is crossed, Prog has been attained. The actual points and threshold? I don't know but clearly these are some of the salient factors:

--If they don't have a keyboard player? subtract points
--They embrace the long form or aren't afraid of songs in excess of 5 minutes? Add points. Bonus Points for 7:30+

--They continue a concept or story across more than one song? add points

--They aren't afraid of a solo longer than 16 bars? add points

--The songs have instrumental sections long enough for the singer to leave the stage and take a dump? add a lot of points. No singer? They're actually a fusion band that just can't write lyrics or find the right guy off Craigslist.

--Embrace the use of odd time signatures? add points.  Using prime numbers >7? add a lot of points.
--Any groove that might get boobs or booty bouncing? Subtract points

--They participated in that youtube trend called "Bet you can't play this" add points unless it was just speed metal. But seriously, is their stuff challenging to play or make sound right? Add points.

--You feel challenged as the listener? Add points

I think that Prog has influenced a lot of bands that might not truly be "Prog". For example, I thing certain songs or concepts by bands as diverse as Green Day, Metric, AFI and Queensryche are definitely progressive even though I wouldn't consider those bands as prog.
 

[David Emm]

"Prog rock" is classical music mashed together with whatever other styles interested the band members the most at the time. 🦄🤨🤓

[Old No7]

6 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

So while not a black and white filter, I think there's a pointlist that, once a certain threshold is crossed, Prog has been attained. The actual points and threshold? I don't know but clearly these are some of the salient factors:

--If they don't have a keyboard player? subtract points
--They embrace the long form or aren't afraid of songs in excess of 5 minutes? Add points. Bonus Points for 7:30+

--They continue a concept or story across more than one song? add points

--They aren't afraid of a solo longer than 16 bars? add points

--The songs have instrumental sections long enough for the singer to leave the stage and take a dump? add a lot of points. No singer? They're actually a fusion band that just can't write lyrics or find the right guy off Craigslist.

--Embrace the use of odd time signatures? add points.  Using prime numbers >7? add a lot of points.
--Any groove that might get boobs or booty bouncing? Subtract points

--They participated in that youtube trend called "Bet you can't play this" add points unless it was just speed metal. But seriously, is their stuff challenging to play or make sound right? Add points.

--You feel challenged as the listener? Add points

 

That's a pretty good list, and I could support that -- although I have no idea of how many points to assign to each.

 

Old No7

6 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

--Any groove that might get boobs or booty bouncing? Subtract points

 

Aw man, can't we at least give them a few style points for this one??? 😉

 

Old No7

[o0Ampy0o]

10 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

--Any groove that might get boobs or booty bouncing? Subtract points **

I think that Prog has influenced a lot of bands that might not truly be "Prog". For example, I thing certain songs or concepts by bands as diverse as Green Day, Metric, AFI and Queensryche are definitely progressive even though I wouldn't consider those bands as prog.
 

 

**You would subtract points from Pink Floyd for that funky part of Echoes?  Ouch!  That is the part of the song which grabbed everyone and made them pay attention to PF.

 

 

ZZ Top would qualify as prog influenced. It's the blues yes but ZZ Top pushed traditional blues (a well worn familiar pair of shoes) to another dimension. It also frequently gets the boobies and booty's bouncing. Also not afraid to do long solos and without doing solos the other two band members constantly contribute to the unique sound occupying their own audio space in the bandscape.

 

 

[Docbop]

This thread is proving Prog is a just a catch all label for any non-Pop. 

[Iconoclast]

12 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

 

**You would subtract points from Pink Floyd for that funky part of Echoes?  Ouch!  That is the part of the song which grabbed everyone and made them pay attention to PF.
 

 

We're only subtracting a few points here! They score hi on the rest of the scale so I think Prog was achieved!  Remember, this is as random and capricious as my parenting rules.

But you've suddenly got me thinking about the Alan Parsons Project, because while they were certainly very proggy, later in his career he wrote a lot of stuff that was popular with the cheerleaders and Soc's (yes...that's an Outsiders reference. Stay gold Ponyboy). Probably the same thing with Styx and Journey. They were my cool secret until they were popular and their songs were being played at Prom and then I hated them.

But I'm not following you at all on the ZZ Top<->Prog thing. I've been recently working up my guitar playing for another project and have had ZZ Top in heavy rotation and other than long solos I'm not awarding any other prog points to their house.

[Iconoclast]

Try this: Google up "Progressive Rock Internet Radio" and you'll be surprised how many stations there are.

I do this while I'm otherwise wasting time on the computer and have found some interesting groups.

[Mr -G-]

Hm... I would consider Alan Parsons Project to be borderline progressive. I would also include as progressive Van Der Graaf Generator and The Enid.

By the way, are there any progressive bands that do not have a keyboard player? 🤔

[Iconoclast]

2 minutes ago, Mr -G- said:

Hm... I would consider Alan Parsons Project to be borderline progressive. I would also include as progressive Van Der Graaf Generator and The Enid.

By the way, are there any progressive bands that do not have a keyboard player? 🤔

Well...not a lot. But I think that Operation Mindcrime is one of the coolest concept albums of all time and while there's certainly some keyboards on the album, the band Queensryche has no keyboard player per se. Maybe that's the exception that proves the rule.

[BadLife]

Tangerine Dream maybe?

[Theo Verelst]

I think Bill Haley made progressive Rock within the confines of my understanding of an idealized definition of the genre. Once or twice I might have confused PR with Jazz / Rock / Funk Fusion, which might be fun but not the greatest idea, like not including the Cream and Hendrix...

 

Ir has to do with how well the productions come to sound on record/tape/radio, and nowadays digital media. "Emmerson Lake & Palmer" sounding through some lame digital mixer and switched amp through speakers with only boom simply isn't right. Like if Depeche Mode would sound like a stupid modern edm act, unacceptable.

 

The lack of nerdy desire like in mainstream pop and rock to control all aspects from a mix such that the result sounds clinical and wrong probably ought te explain some of the PR (in the traditional interpretation) success, also with musicians.

 

Theo V

[BadLife]

Ah tangerine dream is electronica.  How do you tell the difference?

[jazzpiano88]

Frank delineates the sound of traditional jazz from that of prog  (his dismissal of jazz is really funny at the beginning). I also remember in the 80s punk rock was also grouped in with prog which later became called new wave and new wave became prog again.    

 

For me, labels (like "prog") are for the music consumer who is assigned their views by marketers and corporations.   It makes no sense to me to be having an argument between musicians about labels (Frank's stereotype of Jazz in the video not withstanding).  

 

I think Lyle Mays puts this succinctly in his Jazziz interview:

Q: "Who are your favorite jazz musicians"

A: "I really don't think that way.  I can tell you my favorite composers. (Stravinsky Bartok, Mahler, Ravel, Debussy)"

 

 

[stillearning]

5 hours ago, Mr -G- said:

Hm... I would consider Alan Parsons Project to be borderline progressive. I would also include as progressive Van Der Graaf Generator and The Enid.

By the way, are there any progressive bands that do not have a keyboard player? 🤔

I would consider Van der Graaf Generator to be charter members of prog rock!

[o0Ampy0o]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:05 AM, CEB said:

Prog is an after the fact nomenclature invention.  In the day Prog was not a label.  It was simple Rock or Album Rock.  It is what was played on KSHE 95 Real Rock Radio.   Prog didn't exist until the 90s.

 

That had to depend on your location.

 

In the 70's and 80's in the San Francisco Bay Area I was regularly listening to a special segment on local FM called Stone Trek hosted by Greg Stone. Greg Stone was a connoisseur of progressive rock. He had loads of knowledge and had attended live shows of just about everyone in progressive rock. If he hadn't he at least had interesting stories to share about live shows. Stone Trek started as all "progressive rock." Later he added a segment for jazz fusion. Then he added a segment for local bands.

https://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/221265/san-jose-ca-rock-radio-personality-greg-stone-pass

 

He also did concert promotion. At various times he booked Marillion, Ambrosia, Pete Bardens and Bad English at a venue called The Cabaret which was just a large room rented out for wedding receptions. It had to be humiliating for the ex-Journey members in Bad English. They compensated with volume "WE ARE SUCCESSFUL AND FAMOUS AND USED TO PLAYING STADIUMS!"

 

ASIA debuted in 1981. I recall their music described as progressive rock packaged for mass appeal.

 

An aside, in my mind John Wetton was The Vocalist of Progressive Rock.

 

There is a pretty decent attempt at describing Progressive Rock and its history here:

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/progressive-rock-guide

[GRollins]

When people start saying ZZ Top and prog in the same sentence, I get cross-eyed. This is why I say prog lacks a definition. I cannot see a single prog molecule in the ZZ DNA. Lengthy solos do not, for me, make a band prog. If you're going down that path, you're going to be adding the Grateful Dead and every other jam band that's ever existed. Hell, Black Sabbath did some pretty lengthy soloing back when I saw them on the Master of Reality tour, lo, these many years ago. No, I don't think Black Sabbath qualifies as prog...it was just drug-induced noodling.

 

As I expected and predicted, people keep throwing out examples of bands without advancing the definition. And some of the bands mentioned seem to be a bit of a stretch to me...a whole lot of rationalizing going on. Trying to claim that so-and-so was "influenced by prog" doesn't impress me. Everybody is influenced by everybody, to some greater or lesser degree. We all hear classical music, whether we go and seek it out of our own volition, afterwards. We all hear jazz. We all hear country. We all hear opera. Etc. There's an awful lot of straining going on as folks try to attribute characteristics to musicians and bands that...well...I think they're imagining things.

 

Again--I don't claim to have a 24 carat definition for prog. I'm the guy who says (tongue only partly in cheek) it's a label people put on music that doesn't fit anywhere else. Even now, after all these years of people insisting that Tull belongs in the same bin as Yes, I cannot for the life of me hear common ground between those two bands. I love them both, but similar in any way? Nah. The only explanation is that prog is the receptacle for unclassifiable music. If I'm right, then by definition a definition is impossible, which makes it difficult to include or exclude a given specimen; prog is in the ear of the beholder.

 

So, I submit that some of the following are necessary, but not sufficient. The rest are simply highly probable:

--At least semi-skilled musicians, who at least some of the time play at or near the limits of their abilities. There are scads of very, very good, technically accomplished studio musicians who never cut loose. How they keep from exploding, I'll never understand. A prog musician has abilities and friggin' uses them.

--In the process of cutting loose, a musician or band may push back the boundaries of currently accepted practice, but this is not a requirement. It's just them following their muse.

--There's a statistically good chance that sooner or later they'll use something beyond the standard major and three minor scales. Ditto modes.

--Likewise, there's a good chance that they'll go beyond 3/4 or 4/4 time.

--Harmony is important, otherwise it's all too easy to descend into experimental noise. This doesn't have to result from formal training, a good ear will suffice, but a good internal editor is imperative. You have to have the courage to say this is garbage...start over.

--Counterpoint isn't, strictly speaking, necessary, but it helps.

--Instrumental sections are understood to be more extensive than just the typical lead break from guitar (or keys) at least some of the time.

--Keyboards are a requirement, as far as I can tell.

--All members of the band get to play non-trivial stuff at least sometime of the time, not just the guitar.

--Eclectic, oblique, or abstract lyrics are fair game. Ordinary, mundane pop lyric themes are avoided, e.g. heartbreak, "lie down, I think I love you," etc.

--It's not required, but it's not unusual for at least one member of the band to know how to play multiple instruments.

--It's not required, but it's not unusual for at least one member of the band to use multiple guitars (I'm looking at you, Steve Howe), keyboards (Rick Wakeman), drums and sundry percussion (Carl Palmer), etc. during a single performance. Tones and varying musical textures can be important.

--Standard I-IV-V, 12-bar format is avoided.

 

Note that this still doesn't properly define prog, at least to me. Each point is merely a stake, driven in the ground, in a (probably futile) attempt to fence in the beast.

 

Grey

[o0Ampy0o]

 

1 hour ago, GRollins said:

When people start saying ZZ Top and prog in the same sentence, I get cross-eyed....snip

 

As I expected and predicted, people keep throwing out examples of bands without advancing the definition....snip

 

....So, I submit that some of the following are necessary, but not sufficient. The rest are simply highly probable:

--At least semi-skilled musicians, who at least some of the time play at or near the limits of their abilities. There are scads of very, very good, technically accomplished studio musicians who never cut loose. How they keep from exploding, I'll never understand. A prog musician has abilities and friggin' uses them.

--In the process of cutting loose, a musician or band may push back the boundaries of currently accepted practice, but this is not a requirement. It's just them following their muse.

--There's a statistically good chance that sooner or later they'll use something beyond the standard major and three minor scales. Ditto modes.

--Likewise, there's a good chance that they'll go beyond 3/4 or 4/4 time.

--Harmony is important, otherwise it's all too easy to descend into experimental noise. This doesn't have to result from formal training, a good ear will suffice, but a good internal editor is imperative. You have to have the courage to say this is garbage...start over.

--Counterpoint isn't, strictly speaking, necessary, but it helps.

--Instrumental sections are understood to be more extensive than just the typical lead break from guitar (or keys) at least some of the time.

--Keyboards are a requirement, as far as I can tell.

--All members of the band get to play non-trivial stuff at least sometime of the time, not just the guitar.

--Eclectic, oblique, or abstract lyrics are fair game. Ordinary, mundane pop lyric themes are avoided, e.g. heartbreak, "lie down, I think I love you," etc.

--It's not required, but it's not unusual for at least one member of the band to know how to play multiple instruments.

--It's not required, but it's not unusual for at least one member of the band to use multiple guitars (I'm looking at you, Steve Howe), keyboards (Rick Wakeman), drums and sundry percussion (Carl Palmer), etc. during a single performance. Tones and varying musical textures can be important.

--Standard I-IV-V, 12-bar format is avoided.

 

Note that this still doesn't properly define prog, at least to me. Each point is merely a stake, driven in the ground, in a (probably futile) attempt to fence in the beast.

 

Grey

 

I believe the spirit of progressive rock does not insist on any of those things in your list. Those things are just the result of the times and history which existed up to that time. Once they did it you doing the same thing is not the same thing they were doing when they produced those results. I am not saying what you think I am.

 

In visual art people think they can learn to paint like another artist by replicating a painting of theirs. But the painting they are to copy is just the result. The artist had an objective and a reference in mind when they produced that painting. The painting is their interpretation of their reference in the context of their objective.  You have no idea what the artist was seeing in their mind and attempting to depict when they painted the picture. You are only copying their result. You are not doing what they did.

 

Progressive rock is a process. By copying someone's work you are only copying someone's results. They were not thinking what you are thinking. Your objectives, interpretations and the objects of interpretation are not the same.

 

I believe the spirit of progressive rock can be expressed in minimalistic form. It can be expressed in an aspect and every element is not required to be engaged.

 

For instance: You can be progressive in the engineering alone. You can be progressive in the writing alone. You can be progressive in the rhythm alone. You can be progressive in the vocals alone. You can be progressive in the melody and/or harmony alone. You can be progressive in the interpretation of a genre alone. In the same way you can be progressive in a single aspect you can be progressive in 2 and more out of 3, 4, 5, 6 or more.

 

 

[CyberGene]

I’m a bit late to the party but Porcupine Tree FTW 🤘🏻

[stoken6]

14 hours ago, BadLife said:

Ah tangerine dream is electronica.  How do you tell the difference?

Actually a good question. I think there's a difference, but a continuum. 

 

One "canon of work" that splits the continuum (electronic, but very prog-influenced) is Animusic. Not strictly a musical artist, their medium is CGI videos. Album 1, Track 1 is as good a place as any to start: 

 

 

 

Cheers, Mike.

[o0Ampy0o]

22 hours ago, Mr -G- said:

By the way, are there any progressive bands that do not have a keyboard player? 🤔

 

 

 

[JimboKeys]

21 hours ago, Mr -G- said:

By the way, are there any progressive bands that do not have a keyboard player? 🤔

True for symphonic prog, but maybe not so for other sub genres.  I'm surprised no one's mentioned King Crimson as the main counterexample here ---

although they are known for the use of Mellotron, they did quite a bit of material (maybe even the majority) as a 3-piece or 4-piece with sax (or violin).

21st Century Schizoid Man

 

-- Jimbo

[mate stubb]

Allow me to cleanse everybody's palate. First heard these guys on good old KSHE.