The term 'progressive'; outdated, overused or still applicable?

[SoundscapeMN]

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

well, not exactly. A lot of early ethnic and tribal music came before the 1800's, yet would never be described as "classical."

[The Letter M]

If people are arguing over the difference between "prog" and "progressive", don't even get folks started over at other forums, where some even draw lines between "prog", "progressive", and "Prog" (yes, the difference being it has a capital P).

I think what it boils down to is that, certainly, there are bands (that have been around for the last 20-30 years) that have tried to (and sometimes successfully) emulate the sounds/styles of 60's/70's bands, the ones that set the standards for the genre. These bands aren't really "progressing" (meaning, moving forward), but rather writing/recording/playing "progressive" rock/metal, in the spirit of those bands of the past. These bands play the music that made the genre, and pander to the audience that loves bands like Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Rush, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, etc. etc. There are hundreds of these bands out now, many having started in the late 80's/early 90's.

Now, there are bands who play music that is progressing FORWARD, experimenting and expanding their sounds and styles in a parallel way that bands of the past did, but not along the same paths. There are plenty of bands like this out there now, like Radiohead or even Muse, who pioneer the modern age of progressive music. They're not quite popular rock, nor do they fit any other usual/standard over-arching genre of rock (of which there seem to be more of these days). And because of their influences and inspirations, they're often labeled as progressive music. They carry the spirit, the idea of progressing, but do it their own ways.

"Prog Rock", as a GENRE, is all about the sound that those 70's prog giants pioneered. However, not all progressive music or bands can be labeled as that style of Prog, even though they're progressive. While bands like Spock's Beard, The Flower Kings and Transatlantic are all progressive, they're more of the "Prog Rock" sound, but they're still quite different than other progressive bands of the modern age, like Muse or Radiohead.

Then there's also the idea that some bands truly DO progress, like Porcupine Tree, whose first couple of albums sounds quite different than the ones they would do 3 albums later, and even more different after that! They're quite a change in sound and direction over the course of their discography, where as if you look at a band like The Flower Kings, the differences are more subtle. One listen to their compilation The Road Back Home, covers over 10 studio albums, but to an uneducated listener, you might not be able to tell which song came from which album. Yet all of that music is still considered progressive rock, or "Prog Rock" (meaning the sound that panders to fans of 70's bands).

I just think it'll come to a point where the genre won't even need such labels anymore, and we can just enjoy bands for their own sounds rather than try to categorize them with other bands that may or may not even sound like them.

-Marc.