what is it to you in one sentence? there have been a few threads that beat around the bush when it comes to what progressive rock means. just curious.
John Gargo said:Progressive Rock is music that actively attempts to break the "rules" of song structures (i.e. intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus-outro) and approaches to rock music (integrating unusual influences that one doesn't usually associate with rock music, for instance classical or jazz). Experimentation is the key ingredient for a band to remain progressive...
I disagree.NineFeetUnderground said:one doesnt have to integrate non rock influences for it to be progressive rock.
Silent Song said:progressive = creating progress.
progress = forward movement into new territory.
so to me, "Progressive rock" is anything that goes boldly into a new musical space and does it effectively. this could include new techniques, new interpretations, or new arrangements. progression is the art of change, evolution, and adaptation.
and that is why the genre interests me so much. true progressive is the cutting edge of music.
John Gargo said:I disagree.
When I say rock influences, I mean R&B that most "traditional" rock bands usually use as a basic template... It's when rock music takes inspiration from something other than this generally accepted norm (whether it can be defined as from another genre or simply abstractions), that it becomes progressive.
For instance... The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin initially started off doing R&B and blues covers. These were bands that were more influenced by artists like Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, and other 50s rock standards. These bands are not considered prog...
You take a band like King Crimson or Yes, and you see the songs being influenced by classical music and other bizarre approaches that deviate strongly from the R&B mold... These bands ARE progresssive.
dorian gray said:subjective concept. music as an art form is open to all kinds of criticism - which is always 100% subjective and not really accountable to any kind of serious peer-review. what one person says is "progressive" may be successfully argued that it is really "regressive"; that argument could go on forever. ninefeetunderground might not agree with this assessment and i would personally tend to agree with him but it's simply not possible to "prove" anything in art. thus, everything is open to interpretation. i think that's the whole idea.
ps: this is my 1000th post. yay.