The term 'progressive'; outdated, overused or still applicable?

[Elite]

This is something that has been bothering me for longer, and it's not a bash on the genre (hell, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for 'prog'), but more so on the genre's name. Lately, the term 'progressive' has been flying around a lot to describe contemporary bands and I'm really wondering whether this is right or not. The genre in itself has really reached a creative end (how often do you hear about another 'DT clone'?) and there's little innovation or truly renewing stuff in many contemporary progressive rock/metal bands.

Now don't get me wrong here, I still love the genre for what it is, but I think the name is truly misleading and doesn't really show the genres potential. Yes, progressive rock back in the 70's/80's WAS refreshing and 'progressive', but nowadays I think people are just reusing old ideas, passing them on as 'progressive' for the hell of it, without actually overthinking what that word means or used to mean.

There are some things worth mentioning though; the whole 'djent' movement for example (whether you like the music or not), is something I could call 'progressive'. It's new and hasn't really been done before The exploration of lower guitar tunings and 8-stringed guitars and the rhythmic implications in the music make something new altogether and I think this rightfully gets labeled 'progressive'.

Share your thoughts, I do not mean to turn this into a shitstorm of any kind, but mostly a discussion on whether the name for our beloved genre of music is still applicable or not.

[philmcson]

I'd say it is applicable, I don't think music generally has progressed to a stage where there's nothing new to experiment with (in terms of devices and creating melodies/rhythms).

....and I'm not into long posts right now..... 

[Elite]

I'm not saying it has; I think music will always evolve or reinvent itself, albeit something completely unlistenable to most.

[MoraWintersoul]

I would say it's applicable because the genre tag now describes a certain type of sound and not whether something is forward-thinking or not. I use it in both contexts, personally. Whenever I talk of music called progressive, I tend to use the word "prog", and when I talk of something I would consider progressive, I use the word "progressive", usually followed by a few sentences of differentiating between the music I am describing and prog, if that band isn't prog.

[Scorpion]

Milena hit the nail on the head. For me, there's a distinct difference between "prog" and "progressive", and many bands that desire to attach themselves with the label of the latter are actually nothing but the former.

[?]

I would say it's applicable because the genre tag now describes a certain type of sound and not whether something is forward-thinking or not. I use it in both contexts, personally. Whenever I talk of music called progressive, I tend to use the word "prog", and when I talk of something I would consider progressive, I use the word "progressive", usually followed by a few sentences of differentiating between the music I am describing and prog, if that band isn't prog.

As usual, you managed to put my thoughts into words There is a difference between "prog" and "progressive".

[Orbert]

Since one was originally just a shortened form of the other, there shouldn't be a difference.  In common usage, there is, but all it does is cause problems.  I'll still use them more or less interchangeably, because nobody can ever agree one what they mean anyway.  Go to ProgArchives, or the YesFans boards, or the Genesis Talking Shop, and ask if there's a difference, and you'll get 10 different answers when you'd think you'd only get two.  Then ask for the definitions, and you'll get 100.

Prog/Progressive can mean a certain genre, or a certain style, or a certain "attitude" about the music, none of which are exactly the same and none of which depend upon when the music was made.  But it can also point to a specific time period (some people say "prog" when what they really mean is "70's prog" for example) or even a specific movement ("70's prog" for example, which wasn't even called that in the 70's).

There are bands today which are called "progressive" because of their approach to music; they sound nothing like 70's prog.  There are bands today which were actually 70's prog bands which are no longer progressive.

The term isn't outdated or overused so much as it's just too general and has too many definitions to have any real meaning.  If you use it, you then have to qualify/clarify what you mean anyway.  If anything, it's a broad category which you then narrow down to what you "really" mean.

[SoundscapeMN]

"adventurous music [rock/pop/metal/jazz, etc]" or "liberal music [rock/pop/metal/jazz, etc]" might apply better in the modern day.

[kirksnosehair]

"Progressive" to me describes a broad genre of music, kind of like "Rock" does.  Nothing outdated or overused about it and I think it's still very applicable.

[Ħ]

There's a difference between "prog", "progressive", and "Progressive".

All new genres are progressive. But obviously not all are Progressive, or prog.


Unfortunately, we've lost this distinct vocabulary.

[Jaq]

I think it's a straight jacket myself. Progressive Rock has become a genre with set characteristics and tendencies, and people will hammer you if you play within that genre and dare to break their preconceived notions. Want to annoy a prog snob? Play a song in a single time signature. Write an album of sub five minute long songs. Don't have a 20 minute epic. Progressive rock stopped progressing a long time ago, in the main. Truly progressive bands...well, they don't play progressive rock.  Or if they do, they don't play preconceived notions of progressive rock. Progressive rock was never as narrowly defined as the bands that played it today make it-krautrock, early ELO, Canterbury, Genesis, Yes, and ELP all fell under the banner of prog rock, and none of those acts sounded alike. Today's prog bands largely find a band they like and milk them for all its worth. Prog rock's been stuck in a time warp around 1973 for decades, as far as a lot of the fans think. Kind of sad.

[KevShmev]

Jaq is pretty much correct.  Even though I love some current prog bands, most of them are really not progressive.  Hell, I love Transatlantic to death, but they are merely an homage to classic prog, so how exactly is that progressive?  It's really not.  I mean, what are they bringing to the table that is new and fresh?  That is why I often refer to a band like Transatlantic as symphonic rock.

So yeah, in short, being prog and being progressive are two completely different things, and like Jaq said, most of the current acts who are actually playing progressive music are not prog.

[lonestar]

Its about as general a term as "classic rock" is.

[Ħ]

Or even "classical music." Anything written before the 1800s = classical music.

[ZirconBlue]

It's just a genre label, as far as I am concerned.  People who try to inject the literal definition of "progressive" into the discussion just add confusion, IMO.  Instead trying to attach the "progressive" label to anyone doing anything new, why not just come up with a new, more descriptive term for the music they are creating?

[Man-Erg]

Depends on what your interpretation of progressive is. It can be the music that is 1) moving forward musically, very daring and inventive (e.g. Radiohead, The Mars Volta, King Crimson etc.), or 2) progressive in a sense that it's either moving forward beyond simple pop structure or using pop structure to make something interesting out of it (modern retro sounding prog). Of course, every prog band under 1) also does belong under 2), but not every prog band under 2) belongs under 1). For example, I don't think Glass Hammer is really that innovative, but they are indisputably progressive rock.

That said, I'm sick of people emulating 70s prog. I want to hear something fresh, and luckily, there are many experimental prog artists today.

[kirksnosehair]

Its about as general a term as "classic rock" is.

Exactly what I was trying to convey.   

[kirksnosehair]

That said, I'm sick of people emulating 70s prog.

I see this all over the place and my response to it is:  OK, then don't listen to it.




This is really no different than:


"I'm sick of hamburgers"
OK, don't eat them!


"I'm sick of politics"
OK, don't follow politics!


"I'm sick of fire hydrants"
OK, don't.....um....you get it, right? 

[theseoafs]

There's a difference between "prog", "progressive", and "Progressive".

All new genres are progressive. But obviously not all are Progressive, or prog.


Unfortunately, we've lost this distinct vocabulary.

..."Prog" is short for "progressive".  All of these words mean the same thing.

[KevShmev]

..."Prog" is short for "progressive".  All of these words mean the same thing.

In the literal sense, yes, but you have to take context into account here. 

[kirksnosehair]

What context?  Prog is short for Progressive.  There is no secret context 

[KevShmev]

Yes there is, because like has been outlined in this thread, prog now often refers to bands that, while not necessarily progressive, play a specific style of symphonic rock (or metal).  Prog rock is now the standard term for bands that play in that general style.  But that doesn't automatically make them progressive in the literal sense.

[theseoafs]

But "prog rock" is short for "progressive rock".  That's the name of the genre.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

What context?  Prog is short for Progressive.  There is no secret context 

Yes let me give a example:

Poop!
Poop?
Poop.
Pooping
Pooped
Poops

It's all the same!

[KevShmev]

But "prog rock" is short for "progressive rock".  That's the name of the genre.

I get that, but over the years, a certain type of sound/style has become accepted as THE sound/style of the genre, so if you make music in that style, you will be called prog/progressive, regardless of whether or not your music actually is progressive.  I am not arguing with that line of thinking, just saying that there is a difference between the two, based on context.

[theseoafs]

I understand that there's a difference between bands that are unique and original ("progressive") and bands that sound like Yes ("prog" or "progressive") but to argue that there is also a word "Progressive" which has a different meaning just isn't true.

[Zantera]

I think there's a difference in something being "Progressive Rock" or "Progressive Metal" and something being "Progressive". For example, I would say that bands like Radiohead and Ulver are progressive in a sense that they have always explored new territories and tried new genres, but neither of them would fall under "Progressive Rock" for example.

[contest_sanity]

[KevShmev]

Haha, yeah, I should have known better than to dive head first into this, but oh well.

But I will just say this: to anyone saying that anything that is prog is progressive, and vice vera, does the same also apply to pop and popular?  Because just like prog is short for progressive, pop is short for popular.  Stairway to Heaven is one of the most popular rock songs ever, so does that make it a pop song?  Most would say no.  This is what I mean about context.

[bosk1]

I understand that there's a difference between bands that are unique and original ("progressive") and bands that sound like Yes ("prog" or "progressive") but to argue that there is also a word "Progressive" which has a different meaning just isn't true.

Obviously, there is such a vast array of differening opinions out there that it is relatively useless to try to argue that any one opinion is the correct one.  But here is how I look at it:  There are at least two different uses of the term "progressive" as it applies to music that are very much related, but still not equivalent.  One is simply as an adjective to describe characteristics of the music or band.  The music or band is "progressive" in the sense that the music or band "progresses" and takes the music in somewhat new, innovative directions.  Then there is "progressive" in the sense of describing a genre or group of genres that have certain characteristics.  Personally, I consider "prog" to be short for "progressive" only in this second sense of the word, and not really in the first.  But, again, it is complicated by the fact that there is often consiserable overlap between the two. 

So...that's my two cents on the subject.

[Elite]

Or even "classical music." Anything written before the 1800s = classical music.

As a musicologist in training I have to object this. 'Classical' music was written after 1800 and still is today. Perhaps the term itself has been in loophole as much as prog/progressive has been for far too long as well.

[Man-Erg]

That said, I'm sick of people emulating 70s prog.

I see this all over the place and my response to it is:  OK, then don't listen to it.




This is really no different than:


"I'm sick of hamburgers"
OK, don't eat them!


"I'm sick of politics"
OK, don't follow politics!


"I'm sick of fire hydrants"
OK, don't.....um....you get it, right? 

I thought someone would say something like this. What I meant is that I have a strong sense of dislike towards the style of music those people make. It's not that I would ban it, it's just that I strongly dislike it, generally. Maybe I just expressed myself a little bit more aggressive than I should have, but I still stand by my post.

[Ħ]

Can progressive also apply to the kind of "going on a musical journey" mentality? Like, one song will take you from point A to point B rather than be one-dimensional. Or an album's tracklist will be organized in a very particular way so that the album is a cohesive unit (rather than just throw all the singles to the top of the tracklist).

Is that "progressive" or is that just one facet that most progressive bands will adopt?

[Elite]

I think that the word 'progressive' in itself has gained far too many meanings. It's been a term for a genre which isn't 'progressive' (anymore) as far as the actual meaning of the word goes, but a song can be 'progressive' in itself, just like music can 'progress'. Just., where do we stop? Can anything be progressive nowadays, whether it's a band that emulates the style of 70's progressive bands or whether their music is more than just 4-5 minute songs or whether hey employ refreshing stuff (which is clearly up to the listener to decide whether it actually IS 'refreshing') or has the word itself simply gone out of control?

And maybe I'm overthinking this whole thing.

[Big Hath]

But I will just say this: to anyone saying that anything that is prog is progressive, and vice vera, does the same also apply to pop and popular?  Because just like prog is short for progressive, pop is short for popular.  Stairway to Heaven is one of the most popular rock songs ever, so does that make it a pop song?  Most would say no.  This is what I mean about context.

perfect example