I occasionally hear the term “progressive rock” bandied around, often in reference to groups that I like. (Not sure if that’s a boast or a confession around here, taste-wise).
Progressing from what to what? Is it an alternative to regressive rock? Is it affiliated with progressive politics? Do the chords progress through a specific sequence? Is it progressive in the sense of being more “advanced” or there being “more to it” than the rock that came before it?
You’re over-thinking this. It was merely supposed to imply it was an advance over and above straight-up rock’n’roll. Nothing to do with politics or chord sequences.
In any case, when it was at its height (in the heyday of ELP, Yes, Gentle Giant, et al) I for one had never heard the term. Groups like that were just considered at one end of the R’n’R spectrum (I’ll refrain from opining who was at the other end …).
I’ve heard both Yes and Alan Parson’s Project called progressive. The only connection I can see between the two is that they both created very long songs that had a number of parts or movements or themes to them, similar to “classical” music. And they were both from the '70s…
I’ve always wondered what “progressive rock” means, too.
To add some more. “Progressive rock” involves usually long songs with somewhat complex structures and rhythms, rather litterary lyrics, fairly complex orchestration with sometimes unusual instruments. Probably the instrument most typicallu associated with progressive rock is the mellotron, with its rather dark-sounding string and choir sounds generated by a battery of tape loops.
Typical prog rock bands include the aboved-mentioned ELP, Yes and Gentle Giant. Other than that there’s also, of course, early Genesis, Jethro Tull circa Thick as a Brick and A Passion Play, early King Crimson (* In the Court of the Crimson King*), etc.
Pink Floyd somewhat straddled the line between pyschedelic and prog rock, though they don’t sound all that progressive despite the long songs.
Seems like there’s a lot of instrumental complexity for its own sake.
As I understand it, originally yes. But the term grew to encompass anything that was slightly more artistic than bubblegum pop or straight-up hard rock.
Making music to piss off anyone who enjoys dancing.
Jazz went through the same phase in the fifties, demanding audiences sit down and shut up.
I recall attending a King Crimson concert in the early seventies where an angry Robert Fripp shouted at a fan for enjoying himself a bit too loudly.
The Moody Blues were one of the first to be successful with their Days Of Future Past LP back in 1967.
It was usually used for groups, generally British, who were adding classical and jazz elements to rock. Many of the songs were long and complex, and there was a use of strings/mellotron (though this wasn’t required). In my day, a list of progressive rock bands would include, Pink Floyd (especially “Atom Heart Mother”), Procul Harum, the Moody Blues, Yes, Soft Machine, Rick Wakeman, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, Macdonald and Giles, etc.
Prog rock was the point of attack by punk rockers; they ridiculed it for its supposed excesses and moved toward simpler songs. However, the genre was far from being played out and it’s a shame that it’s pretty much moribund these days.
Progressive Rock = operatic ambition combined with Heavy Metal sensibilities. It’s inherently self-limiting, but a lot of bands in the late 70s made quite a go of it.
Prog rock is far from dead; in fact, it’s alive and quite well. It’s just completely underground. SPV records and Inside-Out records are the two biggest prog labels I know of.
I’ll have to check those out.
My basic rules of thumb:
Rock n’ Roll: Three chords, 3 minutes, teenage lust and rebellion - technical musicianship optional.
Pop/Rock: A few more chords, 3 minutes, more complex arrangements/production, often about romance or maybe novelty - technical musician often employed, especially for songs using studio players.
Prog Rock: many chords, many minutes, lyrically can involve complex philosophy/fantasy, etc. - usually involving very technical musicianship.
Beyond that, I don’t think about it that much…
So it’s the music where they change the beauty of the melody until they sound just like a symphony?
Sounds good to me. Kansas, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Enigma, Styx, Alan Parsons Project,
Yes, Kraftwerk, Moody Blues, ELP?
How about these? — Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, U2, Supertramp? Why or why not?
Again - I don’t think too hard about this stuff; it makes my brain hurt for little profit. Bottom line, to me, is that bands can cross genres. Led Zep - Ramble On, Achilles’ Last Stand, etc. definitely have a prog feel, but so many of their others are rock - and that is okay. Same with most of the others you list. Most of what I know of U2 is pretty short rock or pop/rock…
Led Zeppelin is “classic rock” – their technical musicianship just happened to be effing amazing. Most of their songs are blues-influenced with very little psychedelia and a straightforward chord progression. Some of their songs (Battle of Evermore, Stairway to Heaven, Dazed and Confused, No Quarter) are very progressive-sounding, and were on the edge of what could be considered rock and roll. Their experimentation with novel time signatures (The Ocean, Four Sticks, Hi Opal) makes them an ancestor and inspiration for some of the more progressive things being done. And of course, they included some strange instrumentation (mellotron, tabla drums, slide guitar) on almost every album. Phish – who I consider to have progressive leanings/roots – call Zeppelin their biggest influence. I think Zeppelin was “too big” (or “too popular”) to really be embraced by the progressive genre, but I think they were a big influence all the same.
I don’t think U2 counts, but they definitely have ambitions that lean that way: the tendency to produce bigger-than-life “concept” albums, the anthem-type stylings… but they tend to stick to big four-or-five chord tunes written in 4/4, with no weird instrumentation at all.
I’ve heard Jethro Tull called progressive because of the inclusion of the flute, and the insistence that an orchestral instrument with such a “small” voice can be incorporated into anything called rock. Their big-ass saga songs like Aqualung and Thick as a Brick, in my opinion, qualify them to join the club.
I don’t know enough about Supertramp to make the call.
As with pretty much anything else in art, there’s no clear line between prog rock and not prog rock. Zeppelin, Tull, U2, and Supertramp all had progressive tendencies, but I can’t see any of them but Tull being actual prog rock (and if you listen to their later stuff, it’s obvious that that’s what they play). Kraftwerk was more experimental than progressive–and again, that’s another boundary that’s not well-defined.
Just to correct a common misperception: Punk rock did not “kill” prog rock. (I know your post didn’t quite say that RC, but it’s something I’ve heard a lot.) Prog rock pretty much killed itself. Have you heard ELP’s later records? Even their die hard fans admit they’re pretty horrible. And touring with a symphony? That’s a sure sign a band has jumped the shark. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Metallica.) Yes started pumping out bland pop in the eighties, and lets not even think about Asia.
Punk Rock couldn’t have killed any type of music. It just wasn’t that popular until the 90’s. When I was in high school in 1979, me and a few friends were routinely mocked for listening to Pere Ubu, Devo, The Sex Pistols, and the Ramones. Even I regarded these bands as novelties and mostly stuck with Sabbath, Led Zep, and Hendrix.
If you want to look for an outside influence that killed prog, I’d look at Spinal Tap. Who’d want to do Prog after watching Tap belt out Stonehenge?
Punk has been huge in Britain pretty much ever since its inception, and prog rock was mostly a British phenomenon. So it is fair to say that punk killed prog, even if it was collapsing from within (and that’s definitely debatable).
True, I did forget about England. (Typical Yank, only dimly aware that there’s a world beyond our borders :o ) But Prog was much more popular than Punk here in the U.S., even when the big Prog acts started to suck. There was enough of an audience that it could have survived if it wanted to. But most of the people involved seemed to turn to bland pop (Yes, Asia) experimental music (Robert Fripp) or just collapsed from excess (ELP).
The newer stuff you’ve mentioned seems to be bringing back the bold experimentalism that marked the best prog.
And just for kicks, here’s AMG’s entry on neo-prog.