Prog Definition

[dtguitarfan]

This may be covered in an older thread, my apologies if it is. But I'm wondering: what is your definition of the word "progressive", when it's used in the phrase "progressive rock"? I've often heard people say "this band is progressive" or "this band is NOT progressive" and I start wondering if we're talking about the same thing.... I'll give my definition after a few people have answered but I'm just curious to see what people say.

 

[MeTuLHeD]

This may be covered in an older thread, my apologies if it is. But I'm wondering: what is your definition of the word "progressive", when it's used in the phrase "progressive rock"?

Must...resist...urge...to...respond.

No offense. It's just that no two people seem to be able to agree on this. Therefore, all discussions of the subject degenerate into free-for-alls.

 

[zedowns]

somebody just kill me now

 

[KingsGene]

Here's a nice place to start: http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp

 

[TribunalRecords]

Just one person's take on it and a very interesting read. He was also featured on the Progressive Metal episode of METAL EVOLUTION. Wearing *ahem* Canvas Solaris shirt.

 

[Harvester]

 

[dtguitarfan]

I love the definition provided on progarchives' page. The reason I pose the question is that I keep getting into discussions where people either say a band IS progressive, and when I listen I hear nothing but 4-minute songs in verse/chorus/verse/chorus structure with nothing but 4/4 time throughout the album, or I hear people say a band is NOT progressive because they sound too much like another band. The latter REALLY annoys me because if you stick to such an english-literal translation of the term regarding music, then there's really only a handful of progressive artists and they all lived thousands of years ago.

 

[AngraRULES]

I love the definition provided on progarchives' page. The reason I pose the question is that I keep getting into discussions where people either say a band IS progressive, and when I listen I hear nothing but 4-minute songs in verse/chorus/verse/chorus structure with nothing but 4/4 time throughout the album, or I hear people say a band is NOT progressive because they sound too much like another band. The latter REALLY annoys me because if you stick to such an english-literal translation of the term regarding music, then there's really only a handful of progressive artists and they all lived thousands of years ago.

My only suggestion to you would be stop getting into discussions about whether A or B is progressive or not. Trust me, it's the best choice. Who cares whether Mr. Dingleberry thinks Band A is progressive or not?

Labeling a band doesn't make that band more or less awesome.

 

[dtguitarfan]

Ok...then I'm gonna say that Angra is a bluegrass band and you have to be ok with that. ;-)

 

[AngraRULES]

Ok...then I'm gonna say that Angra is a bluegrass band and you have to be ok with that. ;-)

LOL That's fine by me. It might make people question your "progability" though.

 

[dtguitarfan]

LOL That's fine by me. It might make people question your "progability" though.

What if I said they're a f***ing awesome bluegrass band?

 

[AngraRULES]

What if I said they're a f***ing awesome bluegrass band?

That's fine. We probably also share the same opinion that Dream Theater has never been a prog band. They're an AMAZING pop rock band though...

(I figured that's probably the biggest offense EVER to a DT fan, lol)

And to be fair... Edu's vocals have been so bad live (past couple of years), that being a bluegrass band would probably HELP Angra... LOL

 

[dtguitarfan]

That's fine. We probably also share the same opinion that Dream Theater has never been a prog band. They're an AMAZING pop rock band though...

Dude, that's a low blow. ;-)

No, I would say Angra actually qualifies as progressive. Here's my definition, and I'm sure after I give it I'll have people emailing me and telling me how wrong I am and what an idiot I am. But I think there are 4 qualifications that separate a progressive band or artist from the rest of their genre (so there can be progressive jazz, progressive folk, etc.). They are:
1) a composition style that flows more like a narrative than poetry (verse/chorus/verse/chorus)
2) Longer songs
3) Instrumental sections, sometimes very technical
4) The usage of uncommon time signatures (compound time)

I would say to be progressive, a band or artist doesn't have to display all 4 of these, but they have to at least have #1 or #4, or else people could qualify jam bands as Prog.

 

[Justin G]

Just one person's take on it and a very interesting read. He was also featured on the Progressive Metal episode of METAL EVOLUTION. Wearing *ahem* Canvas Solaris shirt.

This.

 

[Justin G]

Dude, that's a low blow. ;-)

No, I would say Angra actually qualifies as progressive. Here's my definition, and I'm sure after I give it I'll have people emailing me and telling me how wrong I am and what an idiot I am. But I think there are 4 qualifications that separate a progressive band or artist from the rest of their genre (so there can be progressive jazz, progressive folk, etc.). They are:
1) a composition style that flows more like a narrative than poetry (verse/chorus/verse/chorus)
2) Longer songs
3) Instrumental sections, sometimes very technical
4) The usage of uncommon time signatures (compound time)

I would say to be progressive, a band or artist doesn't have to display all 4 of these, but they have to at least have #1 or #4, or else people could qualify jam bands as Prog.

I think Angra definitely qualifies as a progressive band, largely because they continue to evolve and, well, progress.

 

[AngraRULES]

Dude, that's a low blow. ;-)

No, I would say Angra actually qualifies as progressive. Here's my definition, and I'm sure after I give it I'll have people emailing me and telling me how wrong I am and what an idiot I am. But I think there are 4 qualifications that separate a progressive band or artist from the rest of their genre (so there can be progressive jazz, progressive folk, etc.). They are:
1) a composition style that flows more like a narrative than poetry (verse/chorus/verse/chorus)
2) Longer songs
3) Instrumental sections, sometimes very technical
4) The usage of uncommon time signatures (compound time)

I would say to be progressive, a band or artist doesn't have to display all 4 of these, but they have to at least have #1 or #4, or else people could qualify jam bands as Prog.

And that's where my contributions to this thread end... The very moment when someone starts outlining all of the progressive traits and "unless they do this or that, they're not prog..."

 

[farren]

You mean Angra's final album wasn't Rebirth? I'd rather pretend it was

 

[dtguitarfan]

And that's where my contributions to this thread end... The very moment when someone starts outlining all of the progressive traits and "unless they do this or that, they're not prog..."

I don't see why qualifications for prog can't be made, I mean, unless a song has certain qualifications it's not a polka, right?

 

[dtguitarfan]

You mean Angra's final album wasn't Rebirth? I'd rather pretend it was

Temple of Shadows was pretty darn good too...

 

[MeTuLHeD]

Temple of Shadows was pretty darn good too...

Loved that disc. A lot of people didn't like Edu's singing on it. By then he had well and truly lost his ability to hit the castrati notes. But I thought it was one of their strongest discs musically.

The "what is prog" discussion? Not gonna go there. I have my opinion. And it's the correct one of course. But others on this forum can't handle the truth. :-D