What is "Prog"?

No, they're not.
I think Prog has simply no definition, and we're enlightened enough to hear something and say "That's Prog".

lol
 
How about:

"Progressive Metal, affectionately called Prog by fans, is the metalized from of Progressive Rock. Forefathers of the genre include such notables as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, as well as progressive hard rockers Rush. Sometimes referred to as "Thinking Man's Metal" Prog is compositionally complex often employing time and key changes, radically varying tempos, and frequent breaks. Vocals are often clean and melodic, though this is certainly not universal. Protracted instrumental segments are prominent, and catchy sing along choruses are almost non-existent.
Early development of the genre can be credited to Queensrÿche and Fates Warning, with the former being more commercially successful, and the latter more stylistically influential. Further refinement is attributed to Dream Theater for their application of multi-layered keyboards and novel complexity. Dream Theater has become the standard by which all other Prog bands are measured.

Avant-garde:
Undoubtedly there is room for much diversity within the genre with Conception and Opeth being at opposite ends of the spectrum. However, there are some who argue that the definition of the genre is too narrow. After all, the argument goes, the term "Progressive" is incompatible with a stagnant or formularized style as described above. They contend that integrating anything new, different, unusual, or innovative is the true definition of "Progressive."
Their detractors point out that such innovations could include rubbing gravel on a cheese grater, which they'd rather not have included in their version of Progressive. Also singing lullabies set to Deathgrind would definitely be something new and unusual, but the resulting music would certainly not match the description above. The challenge then becomes to find suitable terminology that describes the second definition without displacing the first. Some have applied the word “Experimental”; however, it tends to be a self-limiting term. Obviously once something has been done once and becomes a regularly used element, concept, or feature it ceases to be experimental.
Avant-garde is French for "Vanguard," which means forefront or leading edge. As applied to art and music of any kind, Metal included, it refers to the cutting edge, the pushing of boundaries, innovation, and novelty. This then fills the requirement of describing those "truly" Progressive artists without infringing upon Progressive Metal's moniker. Avant-garde is not yet a widely used term in Metal circles, but its use is growing."
 
Bear said:
Where's DT Jesus? I still have his Definition of Prog by Matthew A Rink that I got at the Portnoy forum years ago!! I still think its the most comprehensive meaning that I have ever read.

Bear

Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

3 : moving forward or onward

"Such an effort would be remiss, however, if I didn't state clearly that which I think progressive music IS NOT. For my own part, I happen to think that way too much emphasis is placed on the idea that the "progressive" adjective suggests, or even requires, that the genre's music be some sort of ever-evolving entity. I believe this notion to be laughable. I feel that the title "progressive" is no more than a descriptive term by which to classify music with certain qualities, not an instruction that obligates the music to a strict sense of development. In truth, it is more accurate in my mind to attribute the origin of the term "progressive" to that of "music that has progressed beyond that of conventional music" rather than "music that is continually progressing". So, while I certainly have no desire for a stagnant, repetitve prog rock scene, I think it is considerably off the mark, excessively broad, and perhaps overly idealistic, to cling to the ideal that "progressive" music implies constant change. "

This makes everything else he says destroy the fabric on which the term was originally applied to as well as destroying any honest aspect that may be given to esthetics. If a piece of art doesn't have an ideal applied to it, a goal that the artist wants and works towards reaching, than what is the point of the piece of art? He states that it is excessive to cling to the ideal that "progressive" music implies constant change. If "progressive" in his sense doesn't mean what it says in the definition below than what does it apply to? Business? Technology? Why was it applied to art? Can art be progressive; anything can be progressive, especially art! King Crimson is the embodiment of my example; they are an ever-evolving entity, raising the bar with each album. Each successive album may not top the one before it, but it progresses from it. If not the album, in the case of their 80's material, than it applies to the era of their career, which is still qualifies for the word Progressive, yes, attached to the ideal. He calls it overly idealistic, where does the ideal start and what's wrong with reaching for a higher ideal? Yes, this gets way deeper than into the topic in this forum, but it applies to what a lot of people are going to be reading. I'm not going to proceed to discuss his moral premise on which stands, but although it will be seen as overly dramatic, his stance on the term Progressive, as an artist, makes me want to vomit. Thus my 2 cents on such a comprehensive review of "Progressive Music". I'm not bashing you Bear, I think everyone will agree if they just read that introduction a little deeper, reading what it really applies and what is most likely flying over the author's head.

Now for my definition of "Prog"; "Prog" has 2 definitions as far as I'm concerned. The band was Progressive at one time and then just stopped dead in their tracks. Example of this would be Dream Theater, the complete opposite of this would be King Crimson, who is always progressing. It can also be a set of bands that are emulating the style of another bands progression, or one time progression. No offense to any of the bands that I'm labeling "prog" but an example of this would be Wastefall, PoS is progressive and Wastefall heavily emulates their style. They might add a tinge of their own thing but the amount of influence PoS has on them waters down any sense of progression they would like to maintain. "Prog" doesn't necessarily have to refer to rock and metal genres, if there is a Trumpet player out there who is heavily emulating Miles Davis, I'm sure their are than he is guilty of being "Prog" as well, its just more common among metal and rock bands I think. Just like "Prog" is the abbreviation of progressive, the examples are abreviations of the artist/businessman who is embodies the definition of progressive.
 
St Enigma said:
My own short definition that I use to explain "progressive rock" for people:

"Prog": Characterized by influences from classical music, use of complicated and layered song structures and lengthy multisectioned compositions. Played usually by musically educated and higly talented professionals, mastering music theory and several instruments.



For a more comprehensive (and long!) definition of "prog" click here and read on.



Thats about as detailed as it gets for a definition!!
 
General Zod said:
Are keys mandatory? If so, than bands like Zero Hour and Spiral Architect wouldn't qualify as Prog.

Zod

After listening to three Zero Hour albums, I would place them squarely outside of the prog category. Doesn't mean they don't kick ass...just would not place them in prog.

I am sure I have heard Spiral Architect...but can't remember anything they have done. Guess that makes them, for me, forgettable rock...
 
Greykiller said:
After listening to three Zero Hour albums, I would place them squarely outside of the prog category. Doesn't mean they don't kick ass...just would not place them in prog.
Fair enough. To my ear, Zero Hour is pure Prog Metal.

Greykiller said:
I am sure I have heard Spiral Architect...but can't remember anything they have done. Guess that makes them, for me, forgettable rock...
You'd remember. You'd remember it as being a horrifically painful experience, if you tried to make it through on one listen.:puke:

Zod
 
General Zod said:
Fair enough. To my ear, Zero Hour is pure Prog Metal.

You'd remember. You'd remember it as being a horrifically painful experience, if you tried to make it through on one listen.:puke:

Zod

Exactly....I remember the experience quite well. The look on my face must have been priceless.:Smug: :zombie:


Also I was gonna add... that if it's Metal and has Keys...it's PROG. LOL! Not really...but that's typical because of the multi-layering and more elaborate song structures. I have an interesting read on my other computer that I'll donate to this thread later in relation to this subject.:headbang:
 
Personally, I think all these sub-genres of Metal are bullshit. It's either Metal or it's not anymore. It's just that I am so tired of hearing these ridiculous descriptions anymore. Let's get back to simplicity and just call it Metal. If a description is really needed, just compare them to someone similar.
 
metalprof said:
"Prog" means music that is likely to be enjoyed by someone who likes other bands labelled as "prog".

"Progressive" music is one of the worst category names ever invented because by its strict definition, it would mean an entirely new set of bands every year. But we're stuck with it, so we have to use it in the best way possible.

So, I prefer to think of "prog" as just representing a family tree of music that began back when the term "progressive rock" was used (probably correctly) to describe bands that were taking the musical form beyond its regular bounds, like Cream, Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson, etc. Now, certainly, a year or two after they started doing their thing any other band that came along sounding like that was by definition no longer "progressive" - for example, Marillion wasn't really *progressive* but they're still called progressive rock because we'd moved beyond the strict definition and into the family-tree definition, meaning "If you like Genesis, you should like Marillion, too!"

So picture "prog" metal as a big family tree of bands linked by common ancestors and merging branches and don't worry so much about what it is *really* supposed to mean!

Ken

The things that your saying are very true. My friends and I call "prog" music the thinking man's music, but only because we listen to bands that generally speaking play a more complex style then your every day AC/DC let's say. Although I agree 100% with your analogy of what "prog" meant in the 70s, it has certainly broadened it's definition. Today I think of "prog" as more technical then "mainstream rock or metal. But then I think a band like Power of Omens would be technical (sub-genre). Rush was more "prog" rock then say DIO. And Evergrey is more "prog" metal then say Metalica. "Prog" has morphed in so many directions that it literally means just about anything to anybody today. "Beauty" is truely in the eye of the beholder.
 
prog vs tech

if you can't fuck to it then it is 'tech'...you should still be able to have sex to 'prog' without being the eplileptic lover or ruining your chances of having sex with that person again.