What It Takes To Be Progressive

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorguitarist
  • Start date Start date
Thorguitarist said:
Boston is awesome I didnt really think of them as Progressive but still a sweet band
Click to expand...

a revolutionary band...way ahead of their time IMHO.
 
Over at http://www.progressiveears.com/ they've had a poll on "What is prog?" It came out looking like this (last numbers are votes & points).

1 Creativity/Originality 51 198
2 Experimentalism 37 119
3 Rhythmic Complexity 28 91
4 Harmonic Complexity 22 75
5 Artistic Ambition 17 59
6 Dynamism 22 54
7 Genre Diversity 20 53
8 Instrumental Virtuosity 23 50
9 Instrumental Diversity 17 43
10 Artistic Achievement 14 42
11 Emotional Intensity 13 39
12 Classical Influences 13 30
13 Dense Arrangements 9 29
14 Long Compositions 6 19
15 Lyrical Content 12 14
16 Jazz Influences 5 14
17 Visual Elements 1 1
 
InTheFire said:
Fascinating.
Click to expand...

If it's the poll you refer to, I'm not so sure I agree. But it does attempt to answer part of Thorguitarists question. And they've really broken it down into pieces.

Personally I agree with what someone (Wollheim?) said on the definition of Science Fiction. "It's what I consider Science Fiction". Progressive rock to me is what I think is progressive rock. Eh, and Boston and Steely Dan are great bands, but they don't fit that label - to me...
 
dfdf

I like some prog, not very much, but some- King Crimson, most notably,but I'd say that it takes a lot more skill and creativity to come up with a great pop record than it does to come up with a wacky instrumental that strays wildly from all that is diatonic and has tricky beats. It's the same argument I use when people think guys in Math rock bands are better musicians than guys in catchy power pop groups- usually I'd say it's actually the opposite, because the guys in the Math Rock bands are mostly concerned about chops instead of having good ears. This is the same reason behind why I think your average jazz musician is probably a lot more sophisticated musically than your average classical musician. What do you all think?
 
Beltrom said:
If it's the poll you refer to, I'm not so sure I agree. But it does attempt to answer part of Thorguitarists question. And they've really broken it down into pieces.

Personally I agree with what someone (Wollheim?) said on the definition of Science Fiction. "It's what I consider Science Fiction". Progressive rock to me is what I think is progressive rock. Eh, and Boston and Steely Dan are great bands, but they don't fit that label - to me...
Click to expand...

Well, I don't necessarily agree. Why don't those bands that you listed fit the bill?
 
jeddypoo said:
I like some prog, not very much, but some- King Crimson, most notably,but I'd say that it takes a lot more skill and creativity to come up with a great pop record than it does to come up with a wacky instrumental that strays wildly from all that is diatonic and has tricky beats. It's the same argument I use when people think guys in Math rock bands are better musicians than guys in catchy power pop groups- usually I'd say it's actually the opposite, because the guys in the Math Rock bands are mostly concerned about chops instead of having good ears. This is the same reason behind why I think your average jazz musician is probably a lot more sophisticated musically than your average classical musician. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I've created hundreds of guitar riffs and progressions in my time that never became anything. It's not hard to make that stuff.

The difference is, 'is it saying anything to me' and quickly after, 'is it saying anything to anyone else'.

So, ultimately, I'm constantly trying to find a balance between those two questions. It's more important for me to communicate than to masterbate. Music a universal language and I'm not convinced by music that doesn't speak to me.

There are some people that think only paintings that are photo-realistic are art. And these artists are very intelligent, studied craftsmen. And then you get guys like, Van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso, and Pollock into the mix. Some of them studied, some of them didn't.

Some artists measure themselves by accuracy and execution. Other artists measure themselves by how well they express themselves through their work.
 
InTheFire said:
Well, I don't necessarily agree. Why don't those bands that you listed fit the bill?
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of that definition. You don't have to agree. I got my borders you've got yours. To me progressive music has it's roots in what I grew up with. Genesis, Yes, King Crimson and a few more. For me to put the label progressive on something I have to see some relationship or inheritance from/to that music. Spocks beard and Marillion fit that very well. Porcupine tree and Dream Theater good enough for me to accept the label.
Of course it was a joke, but at the same time we all live with our own references, so it's also true.

View it like this. There's a set of attributes that makes music progressive to someone. The clearer the music fits these attributes the clearer it is progressive to this person. Even if we share the same attributes we don't value them the same. In this sense all music have some "progressive" marks (and jazz and classic and pop) but we each have a scale that tips over when these attributes reach a certain level.Those bands simply don't trigger enough atttributes FOR ME to label them progressive. But like I said, I still think they're good bands.

As an "odd" example for me progressive music also has some small ties with SciFi, so if the themes or names remind me of Scifi or fantasy there's a bigger chance I'll label it progressive. There's a good chance a lot of people don't make that connection.

(Please leave some room for English not being native to me.)
 
InTheFire said:
Some artists measure themselves by accuracy and execution. Other artists measure themselves by how well they express themselves through their work.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm on thin ice here. And i haven't really thought this through. But there's also some music that reminds me more of a craft than art. Like the difference between a housepainter and an artist. Those who work in that area can of course be very skilled and there's even estetics involved. But it's not art. Which I DO think a lot of progressive music are..

Maybe the difference between architect and sculpturer is better...

Anyway, lot's of pop music (not all) bores me after one or two listens. Good music should survive repeated playing. Someone who can make a song that gets the attention from the start, and still people never get bored listening to it. Maybe even appreciate it more with time. That's the skilled guy, whatever the genre.
 
Beltrom said:
Maybe I'm on thin ice here. And i haven't really thought this through. But there's also some music that reminds me more of a craft than art. Like the difference between a housepainter and an artist. Those who work in that area can of course be very skilled and there's even estetics involved. But it's not art. Which I DO think a lot of progressive music are..

Maybe the difference between architect and sculpturer is better...
Click to expand...

So, you mean you think a lot of progressive music IS or ISN'T art?
 
Beltrom said:
Anyway, lot's of pop music (not all) bores me after one or two listens. Good music should survive repeated playing. Someone who can make a song that gets the attention from the start, and still people never get bored listening to it. Maybe even appreciate it more with time. That's the skilled guy, whatever the genre.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely.
 
InTheFire said:
So, you mean you think a lot of progressive music IS or ISN'T art?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of progressive rock is art or at least has the aspiration to be. I think part of the reason might be that you (as a rule) don't end up in that genre if you're in it for the money.
 
I'll bet there's some truth there. But, that would say, I think, that "progressive artists" have trouble connecting with the audience.
 
I'm still confused............. :confused:

From reading this thread, it seems I can call something progressive when
1. it's not commercial
2. it's not too simple
3. I like it a lot

What's in a name........................???????????????????
 
InTheFire said:
I'll bet there's some truth there. But, that would say, I think, that "progressive artists" have trouble connecting with the audience.
Click to expand...

But when they do, maybe it's deeper?
 
it's touche. it's French.

it helped me personally define progressive music when I began to think of it this way: most music has a circular structure, in that it repeats the chorus, everything is repeated, and the appeal lies in the fact that we can become very familiar with the music before the song is even over. (so that's like ABACAA) Progressive music, on other hand, goes more like ABCDEFGHIJKL... takes a bit longer to grow familiar with the music for this reason, and (for me) the appeal lies in the fact that it takes effort from me to 'get' the music. progressive music requires cooperation from the listener; you have to go and meet it halfway. it won't come all the way to you, even bashing down your front door and jumping on your lap and screaming into your face like some pop music (ABABAAAABAAAA 4/4)

at least, that's what I tend to notice when I listen to music I define as Progressive ;)
 
I think first and formost must be Musicianship, everything else follows on from that. prog rockers have to be technicaly brilliant musicians and love to show it off!

Young kids who know a few chords can play The Clash, but they can't play 'YES', there's the difference.

I can't believe prog rock is coming back again, I thought we'd seen the back of it 20 years ago! Just goes to show you're never safe. I expect 80s synthesiser music will come back next, that's even worse prostepct!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top