Noted avant-garde guitarist Dennis Rea attempts to define one of the most elusive musical genres, progressive rock. Created to help promote Seaprog 2014, the Seattle progressive rock festival (see Seaprog.org for details). Music by Moraine.
Пікірлер
I spend half of the video without realizing the background was a shitty green screen lmao
@MrEmafon47 жыл бұрын
haha
@Moses_Kanneh5 жыл бұрын
i saw this comment almost exactly halfway through the video...
@HypaspistOrange3 жыл бұрын
It means it is a good green screen nonetheless
@khantminthu40253 жыл бұрын
would have watched the entire video without realizing it, if it weren't for your comment
@DMStarFlash3 жыл бұрын
When it comes to progressive rock music, I still fall back on the old axiom “I know it when I hear it”. ☮️
@adirondackjoe5 ай бұрын
Prog is what Psyche musicians did when the acid ran out.
@tomrochester73818 жыл бұрын
+Tom Rochester Ha ha. Yeah, they had to actually learn to know what they were doing.
@mikereiss42168 жыл бұрын
🤣😂👍🏻
@phearlesspharaoh36972 жыл бұрын
He explains it better after about 2:40. Basically Rock music is a fusion of other music any way, so progressive rock is just a continuation of the addition of new ideas. One of the main characteristics of prog are things like subject matter, instrumentation, song structure, complex beats, emphasis on the instrumental side, and the psychedelic (philosophical/spiritual) aspects of it. What's more interesting is how prog as we know it came about. Much of that has to do with the British rock groups being more of a sponge of American music types Rock/Jazz/Folk/Country,Blues while still having more of a background in classical music than the typical American rock musician. American music tends to be more homogeneous (is that the right word?) meaning the players sometimes play the music of their region. The early British blues scene tried to be more authentic and locked into a certain style, but that changed, and part of that was because The Beatles had George Martin as producer, and they also liked other forms of music, and had played a wide variety of music. On the other side of the pond, you had innovative producers like Phil Spector, and Brian Wilson who expanded the vocabulary of pop music to include a variety of instruments, and styles form old time rag, to psychedelic. Once this took hold around '65-'66 things changed rapidly with the Byrds, Bob Dylan going electric, and in England mellotrons, sitars, and various instruments were used to add different elements to the music. What finally nailed it in my opinion was when King Crimson came to the scene, because it was so powerful. One significant change that happened with King Crimson, the Moody Blues, and the Nice was bringing the symphonic sound to a live performance with the help of Mellotron, in the case of The Nice, just having classical chops, and fusing rock with classical, and jazz, rather than studio trickery that was popular in psychedelic groups. It moved from studio dynamics to live dynamics.
@CaseyVan8 жыл бұрын
Rock music is not a "fusion" of anything. Subject matter is not a characteristic of prog because subject matter can vary. Instrumentation is also not a characteristic of prog because it can vary wildly. It can be just drums and electric guitars like in your standard rock music, or it can include orchestra or ethnic folk instruments. Song structure is also not a characteristic of prog because there are no song structures that would be typical for prog rock. There are many different styles of composition within progressive rock.
@piotrb84344 жыл бұрын
Casey great points!
@BillMoorehouse4 жыл бұрын
I like this description of progressive rock very much. Very good explanation
@cameronfrench2857 жыл бұрын
Nice vid. Someone commented that a song I did was "almost progressive sounding" and I had learn more about it. Back in the 70's I viewed prog rock and being more advanced and definitely not predictable but still being rock and cool and tasteful music. Thank you for posting!
@user-vh2kb2qy3vАй бұрын
How could you forget Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes, Emerson and Marillion? For me, prog has always been a music of atmospheres, mind-set images and following the lead wherever it takes you. Thank God certain groups like Rush, IQ and Pendragon, who by the way all do a brilliant job, still keep the light burning!
@drindroldog3 жыл бұрын
I would love to watch more of your videos
@utkarshkulshrestha67833 жыл бұрын
What is Prog ? Baby don't play me, Don't play, In 4/4
@larkstonguesinaspic48146 жыл бұрын
so jazz is prog western swing is prog waltz is prog
@jamiewesson8985 жыл бұрын
Jack Bruce hinted that Cream broke up because he wanted to more or less explore with his writing and Eric Clapton wanted to stay more roots oriented. I think Ginger Baker sided with Bruce, considering Air Force. Bruce went on to work with Carla Bley, Tony Williams, Allan Holdsworth, Kip Hanrahan, all very progressive musicians. I always think of that when the subject of progressive rock comes up.
@GaryALucas7 жыл бұрын
Been a Prog Rock fan forever, I just didn't know it until recently. Saw Nektar last night!!! Best concert of my life, and I'm 50!
@donnajocatlady38394 жыл бұрын
I disagree with the notion that prog musicians have to all be virtuosos. True they have to be very good musicians for the most part but it depends on what the music is trying to accomplish. Pink Floyd were not the best on their instruments(with the possible exception of Gilmour)but I think you can say they were progressive. The Moody Blues are another example. Nothing overly technical or complicated but for their time they were pushing boundaries. There are other examples of maybe more acoustic or mellow bands who weren't necessarily virtuosos.
@mikereiss42168 жыл бұрын
_"I disagree with the notion that prog musicians have to all be virtuosos"_ I don't think anybody said that progressive musicians were necessarily virtuosos, just that virtuosity is one of many ways to make popular music progressive because it is not traditionally associated with pop and rock. 99.9% of rockers are not accomplished musicians, even the most famous rock bands are partly or entirely made of musicians who can't read music in the traditional sense of the term. Being a great musician is not a requirement for being a good rocker, I'd take Mick Jagger doing the rock thing over any music professor out there. Saying that rock is an attitude is a platitude because it is so true. Accomplish musicians on the other hand, can and have brought something new to rock music, more than attitude, and that is what makes their music progressive. They added elements not traditionally associated with rock music and you often need a high degree of musicianship to be able to do that. Regarding Pink Floyd, Richard Wright was the only competent musician in the original Floyd line-up, you have to be to be admitted to a music school. Neither Waters, Barrett or Mason were real musicians. He wasn't into rock music preferring jazz and classical. The unusual sound of the Pink Floyd is in part due to the contribution of a non rocker within their ranks and that is, again in part, what earns Floyd the label of progressive.
@BlunderCity5 жыл бұрын
If you think clearer, Pink Floyd is the only "prog" band that doesnt have virtuosos, Gilmour may be the best musician Floyd had but he was the opposite playing to a virtuoso, which is generally accepted as a musician that is able to play really hard and complex music (clear speed, odd times, exotic modes and chord progressions, polymetrics etc...) and make it look easy. Just look Allan Holdsworth or Gentle Giant for example... PF did very simple music look harder (with effects and quality production). This comes because all prog bands have basis on jazz and classical (most notable on Canterbury Scene) while non prog rock bands have blues basis, Pink Floyd had blues basis, not jazz as Rick Wright used to say. For me Prog definition to Floyd was just an industry label, even you find virtuosos on non prog bands like Jon Lord or Eddie Van Halen. Pink Floyd has indeed some proggy elements, but the genre itself? God No.
@oscarjmontanez21095 жыл бұрын
@@oscarjmontanez2109 PF is definitely Proggresive, Their concept albums are among the best out there if not the best and they also had amazing lyrics, musically in the early days they where very abstract and creative, have you heard Ummagumma? that album is full of amazing experimental Suites and songs, I can't deny that they where not Musical Virtuosos but they where not bad at all, specially Wright and Gilmour, just listen to Sysyphus Pt.2 and you'll see, it becomes darker and messy but it's amazing nonetheless. Atom Heart Mother is another example, it's an amazing orchestrated instrumental Suite with Brass sections. All of this early albums where pioneers of the Prog Movement and where highly experimental. They where not the best by any means but they definitely raised the bar higher in some way or another and that's what Prog is about In my opinion.
@hanckk25465 жыл бұрын
@@hanckk2546 I was a music lover fanboy of Floyd in the past I know all their albums loving more WYWW and Animals era, In that moment I didnt care about prog or not, however As I got King Crismson by mistake, studying music Theory and pitching my ears at conservatory (Im a Academic Drummer) and went into jazz, I found Floyd music very plain and predictable compared to any other classic prog rock bands, even some non prog bands like Led Zep or Queen I still found interesting things. I know Floyd have some prog elements like conceptual themes, "atmosphere" and very sophisticated production starting from DSOTM, but among those sound effects, simply cannot conceive them as real prog rock as I already said plus Nick Mason's drumming very boring for me. In my opinion they were progressive in their music, (reaching a climax on Animals), but not progressive as the genre itself. They musically speaking (no sound effects) were not so experimental like for Example Beatles circa 66 when they start adding modal scales from India, jazzy chords and more sophisticated harmony than Floyd (specifically Gilmour) did ever, (Guess their only phrygian song was set the controls... and still basic). Actually Floyd music can be played by amateurs or by musicians with basics on musical formation. but for example King Crimson music or Soft Mahcine music (Or any other classic prog band else) is hard to play even for professional musicians.
@oscarjmontanez21095 жыл бұрын
@@hanckk2546 Take a listen to A Sprinkling of Clouds by Gong, they were experimenting in 74' with heavy sound effects and jaming for 10 minutes like monsters through a 5+5+5+9/8 time signature, space style like floyd but jazzy harmony and virtuosic elements, that for me would sound Floyd if they were real prog (or like Eloy 76-79 era).
@oscarjmontanez21095 жыл бұрын
Well done, you nailed it succinctly
@deanwolfechannel2 жыл бұрын
What's crazy is the 5 subs and 3k views
@lazyworm94516 жыл бұрын
Haha yes. The views probably come from the video being watched mostly off of KZhead.
@BlunderCity5 жыл бұрын
Thank u
@pietrozaffutomusic2 жыл бұрын
Nice.
@jamesspears65904 жыл бұрын
I wish he could touch on progressive electronic music and how it progressed from the rock scene to the trance and acid genres :(
@Albanez392 жыл бұрын
I like to consider Prog to be synonymous with Post-Psychedelic. Though technically the term Progressive in music existed back in the 1940s with Progressive Jazz, the general idea was to push past what was considered Normal at the time, not entirely just to push music further because, as a whole, Progressive Rock didn't actually do a bunch in terms of pushing the boundaries of music forward, aside from The Beatles and Pink Floyd. What it really did was push the boundaries for OTHER Prog bands down the line. Rush is unanimously considered Prog, but they never really contributed anything to music apart from displaying their own talents. Their style harkens back to the progress of bands like Led Zeppelin, Genesis, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Sure they added a bit of Nerdy Sci-Fi to their sound and that did impact a lot of the 1980s video game-influenced Heavy Metal. But that's not why we deem them Prog. We deem them Prog because of their odd time signatures, grand epics, complex instrumentation, and fantasy-inspired lyrics. All of which already existed in those same bands I listed above. Regardless we consider Rush to be one of the Top 3 Prog Bands in music. Contrast this with artists that do push the boundaries of music forward and successfully influence other artists going forward. For example, Michael Jackson. Along with Quincy Jones in 1979, Jackson embarked on a quest to form a new sound of Pop music to replace Disco which had just died a fiery death at Comiskey Park in July of that year. They released Off The Wall which was intended to be a prototype for a new sound that included Funk, Disco, Soul, R&B, and Pop. However, it wasn't enough to change music going forward. That is until Jackson befriended the Rock band Queen in 1980 and convinced them to release their song Another One Bites The Dust as a single which they were incredibly skeptical of doing. But they did, and it became their highest charting single in the US. After this, Jackson discovered what he was missing; Rock! His next album would be a combination of the genres found in Off The Wall with a hint of more aggressive rhythms and guitars found typically in Rock music. That album was Thriller, and it became the best selling album of all time! After this, many Pop and R&B artists began to use this same formula and continued to make big hits, new genres and styles, and influence more and more artists along the way. By definition, Michael Jackson progressed music forward and no one can deny that. But we don't consider him Progressive Pop, do we? So why do we consider bands like Rush who haven't necessarily done much in pushing music forward "Progressive", but not artists like Michael Jackson who have indeed pushed music forward? The answer is simple: Progressive music is not defined by the word "Progressive", but rather defined for being atypical and intentionally avoiding simplicity. More importantly, Progressive music is characterised by its experimentation of multiple genres with respect to the structures of Classical compositions. In short, it combines music of the past with music of the future in attempts to differ from popular trends. Michael Jackson, while harnessing music of the past, was too close to that music in the timeline, whereas Rush all existed centuries after artists like Mozart, Chopin and Bach. They took elements of what made Classical music so great and simply put it through guitars, bass, drums, and keyboards to achieve the same effect but obviously with intent to sound completely new. This explains why so many Progressive Rock bands often sound very symphonic in sound and are often seen playing Classical songs or Classical-like songs on their albums. Another genre that is often in the same place as Classical is Jazz. Especially with bands like King Crimson and Pink Floyd, Jazz has frequently been used in Progressive Rock, often giving it a softer and more introspective approach, which explains the two general styles of Prog being either large, complex, and 20-minute epics or softer, lyrical, and subtle experiences. One is Classically-influenced and the other is Jazz influenced. These types can also exist simultaneously and is often the case with later Progressive bands like Dream Theater, Primus, and Tool, though such newer bands picked up a little 70s genre known as Funk, again, of which existed about 20-30 years prior to them. In conclusion, the best definition I can muster up is as follows: Progressive music is a subgenre type of multiple genres, mainly Rock, Pop, Metal, and Jazz, that exists to be atypical and non-simplistic, combining past and future musical ideas and structures with the intent to push music forward, often through Classical and/or Jazz influences and experimentation into futuristic/avant-garde sounds and styles. This often includes odd time signatures, lengthy song durations, challenging of the form, and fantasy/concept-based lyrics and/or albums. I say "intent", meaning that may not always happen, but it is undoubtedly a common goal for Prog bands. And like many genre definitions, this may not apply to every Progressive Band. But I challenge anyone reading to identify a band that doesn't at least fall into some parts of the definition.
@TheBlackQueen3 жыл бұрын
Prog music afficinados know exactly what the term refers to. His description is accurate and honest. There were and are several bands who created progressive music without even knowing it, that's the magic of artist expression. Just because you may be lumped into a genre or category by the media doesn't mean you have to live there.
@Kalprog4 жыл бұрын
I think any concept album that goes on a journey is progressive rock.
@popachelli35486 ай бұрын
IMO King Crimson was the best… “Elephant Talk” one of my favs
@phearlesspharaoh36972 жыл бұрын
Starting simple ending complex
@majaratti90314 жыл бұрын
3:52 can anyone tell me the name of the song in bg?
@Yura-Sensei3 жыл бұрын
I don't think most people are aware of Soft Machine nor do I think they would generally be considered "classic rock."
@mikereiss42167 жыл бұрын
Song at 4.10?
@jsthomas78927 жыл бұрын
What is the song that plays @ 4:46 ?
@AgelessIlluminate5 жыл бұрын
sounds like mahvishnu orchestra
@diegoorrico94155 жыл бұрын
Can someone name the song at 4:35
@utkarshkulshrestha67833 жыл бұрын
What makes Houses of the Holy prog rock?
@aalever4 жыл бұрын
Idk. Physical Graffiti is a better prog album
@xxxtentioncable68134 жыл бұрын
I like the freedom of progressive music.
@krazyhartin2 жыл бұрын
is Rush prog?
@Abonanno246016 жыл бұрын
What's that song that started @ 4:20
@AgelessIlluminate5 жыл бұрын
As well as the song that started @ 4:50 lol
@AgelessIlluminate5 жыл бұрын
Prog Rock must earn the title only after having proven to further development of compositional style which includes elements from several world music sources with which the players have become somewhat comfortable expressing themselves. No small set of formulae should be employed to base production of addition iterations. Composition needs to express any creativeness the players are growing into. Growth and not simply juggling of elements and twists of phrases, without which the title of "progressive" does not apply.
@Youtubemademeaddahandle2 жыл бұрын
houses of the holy prog ha
@jamiewesson8985 жыл бұрын
Jojo's Bizarre Adventure brought me here
@MrNic9193 жыл бұрын
Ok
@samuelling46864 жыл бұрын
In my opinion the Beatles were just starting to flirt with prog with the Abbey Road medley.
@toddjohnson2713 ай бұрын
ProgOn! #atlascube
@AtlasCubeProgressiveRock4 жыл бұрын
Therefore Pink Floyd , ELP, ELO...early albums are Progressive!
3 жыл бұрын
Progressive rock is psychedelic rock without the overt drug references.
@markahlers60117 ай бұрын
His body is so robotic!
@Guitarist8882 жыл бұрын
Kerry Livgren, KANSAS, is the best composer ever
@phoenix9375 Жыл бұрын
"...not so much a genre as an approach to making music...", "Progressive rock... it's a desire to go beyond the formulaic...". You, Sir, hit the nail on the head. "Prog rock" is not and was never a strictly defined genre of music. It's a tendency to go beyond the simple song format of rock music that first appeared in the late 1960's. It's a tendency to broaden the original narrow formula of rock and incorporate non-rock elements into it. It is NOT a genre. And by the way, "classic rock", "alternative rock", "college rock" are also not genres. Dixieland jazz, be bop, bluegrass, rockabilly, beat music, hard rock, punk rock, heavy metal, noise rock, hip hop, drum 'n' bass, acid house, death metal, hardcore, electronic body music, surf rock are genres. Prog is not a genre.
@piotrb84344 жыл бұрын
Kraftwerk?
@ProJatior7 жыл бұрын
Kraftwerk are krautrock
@aidenswords58093 жыл бұрын
Is Phish Prog??
@manigoug39258 жыл бұрын
+man gough To some extent yes. Have you heard Umphrey's McGee? They combine jam band with prog stuff.
@mikereiss42168 жыл бұрын
Mani Goug or Rush
@Abonanno246016 жыл бұрын
yes they are. junta is easily one of the best prog albums of all time
@oscarbrittingham-detxemend3963 жыл бұрын
Progressive music is music that starts off slow or soft and gets progressively faster or harder
@shadowninjarider3745 жыл бұрын
How tf did he not mention Rush when listing examples in the beginning? They’re practically The Godfather’s of prog rock
@xanderdaniels82845 жыл бұрын
storeeteller1 No we aren’t, but Rush undeniably transformed prog and brought it to the masses in way that none of those bands did before it. There’s a reason that nearly every modern prog band cites Rush as a major influence.
@xanderdaniels82844 жыл бұрын
Oh, was he supposed to list every fucking band on the planet? That would've served so much to the point of the sentence
@zgSH4DOW4 жыл бұрын
king crimson, yes, soft machine, etc had their feet deep in the ground years before Rush even released their first album
@oscarbrittingham-detxemend3963 жыл бұрын
Led Zeppelin’s “ Achille’s Last Stand “ is quintessential prog akin to Pink Floyd’s “ Shine on You Crazy Diamond “. Prog is a chord progression or “ texture “ that subtlety manifests into a mind blowing musical experience and returns back to its origin to take you down gently from the journey.
@jakekarr97333 жыл бұрын
Have to admit, when I heard "inclusive" I got triggered.
@snaphaan50492 жыл бұрын
Progressive lol I heard that term before 👎🏼
@captivesojourner4 жыл бұрын
Never did go away. Like herpes. 😅
@wonkawilly55733 ай бұрын
This explains absolutely nothing
@jayvalentine20463 жыл бұрын
yeah I feel like he was saying so much without actually saying anything. all I got was "it's the way you think while making music"
@wahlawigi95722 жыл бұрын
Prog/ progressive should be eliminated as a music category. It's a term assholes use to make you feel bad about the music you enjoy.
I spend half of the video without realizing the background was a shitty green screen lmao
haha
i saw this comment almost exactly halfway through the video...
It means it is a good green screen nonetheless
would have watched the entire video without realizing it, if it weren't for your comment
When it comes to progressive rock music, I still fall back on the old axiom “I know it when I hear it”. ☮️
Prog is what Psyche musicians did when the acid ran out.
+Tom Rochester Ha ha. Yeah, they had to actually learn to know what they were doing.
🤣😂👍🏻
He explains it better after about 2:40. Basically Rock music is a fusion of other music any way, so progressive rock is just a continuation of the addition of new ideas. One of the main characteristics of prog are things like subject matter, instrumentation, song structure, complex beats, emphasis on the instrumental side, and the psychedelic (philosophical/spiritual) aspects of it. What's more interesting is how prog as we know it came about. Much of that has to do with the British rock groups being more of a sponge of American music types Rock/Jazz/Folk/Country,Blues while still having more of a background in classical music than the typical American rock musician. American music tends to be more homogeneous (is that the right word?) meaning the players sometimes play the music of their region. The early British blues scene tried to be more authentic and locked into a certain style, but that changed, and part of that was because The Beatles had George Martin as producer, and they also liked other forms of music, and had played a wide variety of music. On the other side of the pond, you had innovative producers like Phil Spector, and Brian Wilson who expanded the vocabulary of pop music to include a variety of instruments, and styles form old time rag, to psychedelic. Once this took hold around '65-'66 things changed rapidly with the Byrds, Bob Dylan going electric, and in England mellotrons, sitars, and various instruments were used to add different elements to the music. What finally nailed it in my opinion was when King Crimson came to the scene, because it was so powerful. One significant change that happened with King Crimson, the Moody Blues, and the Nice was bringing the symphonic sound to a live performance with the help of Mellotron, in the case of The Nice, just having classical chops, and fusing rock with classical, and jazz, rather than studio trickery that was popular in psychedelic groups. It moved from studio dynamics to live dynamics.
Rock music is not a "fusion" of anything. Subject matter is not a characteristic of prog because subject matter can vary. Instrumentation is also not a characteristic of prog because it can vary wildly. It can be just drums and electric guitars like in your standard rock music, or it can include orchestra or ethnic folk instruments. Song structure is also not a characteristic of prog because there are no song structures that would be typical for prog rock. There are many different styles of composition within progressive rock.
Casey great points!
I like this description of progressive rock very much. Very good explanation
Nice vid. Someone commented that a song I did was "almost progressive sounding" and I had learn more about it. Back in the 70's I viewed prog rock and being more advanced and definitely not predictable but still being rock and cool and tasteful music. Thank you for posting!
How could you forget Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes, Emerson and Marillion? For me, prog has always been a music of atmospheres, mind-set images and following the lead wherever it takes you. Thank God certain groups like Rush, IQ and Pendragon, who by the way all do a brilliant job, still keep the light burning!
I would love to watch more of your videos
What is Prog ? Baby don't play me, Don't play, In 4/4
so jazz is prog western swing is prog waltz is prog
Jack Bruce hinted that Cream broke up because he wanted to more or less explore with his writing and Eric Clapton wanted to stay more roots oriented. I think Ginger Baker sided with Bruce, considering Air Force. Bruce went on to work with Carla Bley, Tony Williams, Allan Holdsworth, Kip Hanrahan, all very progressive musicians. I always think of that when the subject of progressive rock comes up.
Been a Prog Rock fan forever, I just didn't know it until recently. Saw Nektar last night!!! Best concert of my life, and I'm 50!
I disagree with the notion that prog musicians have to all be virtuosos. True they have to be very good musicians for the most part but it depends on what the music is trying to accomplish. Pink Floyd were not the best on their instruments(with the possible exception of Gilmour)but I think you can say they were progressive. The Moody Blues are another example. Nothing overly technical or complicated but for their time they were pushing boundaries. There are other examples of maybe more acoustic or mellow bands who weren't necessarily virtuosos.
_"I disagree with the notion that prog musicians have to all be virtuosos"_ I don't think anybody said that progressive musicians were necessarily virtuosos, just that virtuosity is one of many ways to make popular music progressive because it is not traditionally associated with pop and rock. 99.9% of rockers are not accomplished musicians, even the most famous rock bands are partly or entirely made of musicians who can't read music in the traditional sense of the term. Being a great musician is not a requirement for being a good rocker, I'd take Mick Jagger doing the rock thing over any music professor out there. Saying that rock is an attitude is a platitude because it is so true. Accomplish musicians on the other hand, can and have brought something new to rock music, more than attitude, and that is what makes their music progressive. They added elements not traditionally associated with rock music and you often need a high degree of musicianship to be able to do that. Regarding Pink Floyd, Richard Wright was the only competent musician in the original Floyd line-up, you have to be to be admitted to a music school. Neither Waters, Barrett or Mason were real musicians. He wasn't into rock music preferring jazz and classical. The unusual sound of the Pink Floyd is in part due to the contribution of a non rocker within their ranks and that is, again in part, what earns Floyd the label of progressive.
If you think clearer, Pink Floyd is the only "prog" band that doesnt have virtuosos, Gilmour may be the best musician Floyd had but he was the opposite playing to a virtuoso, which is generally accepted as a musician that is able to play really hard and complex music (clear speed, odd times, exotic modes and chord progressions, polymetrics etc...) and make it look easy. Just look Allan Holdsworth or Gentle Giant for example... PF did very simple music look harder (with effects and quality production). This comes because all prog bands have basis on jazz and classical (most notable on Canterbury Scene) while non prog rock bands have blues basis, Pink Floyd had blues basis, not jazz as Rick Wright used to say. For me Prog definition to Floyd was just an industry label, even you find virtuosos on non prog bands like Jon Lord or Eddie Van Halen. Pink Floyd has indeed some proggy elements, but the genre itself? God No.
@@oscarjmontanez2109 PF is definitely Proggresive, Their concept albums are among the best out there if not the best and they also had amazing lyrics, musically in the early days they where very abstract and creative, have you heard Ummagumma? that album is full of amazing experimental Suites and songs, I can't deny that they where not Musical Virtuosos but they where not bad at all, specially Wright and Gilmour, just listen to Sysyphus Pt.2 and you'll see, it becomes darker and messy but it's amazing nonetheless. Atom Heart Mother is another example, it's an amazing orchestrated instrumental Suite with Brass sections. All of this early albums where pioneers of the Prog Movement and where highly experimental. They where not the best by any means but they definitely raised the bar higher in some way or another and that's what Prog is about In my opinion.
@@hanckk2546 I was a music lover fanboy of Floyd in the past I know all their albums loving more WYWW and Animals era, In that moment I didnt care about prog or not, however As I got King Crismson by mistake, studying music Theory and pitching my ears at conservatory (Im a Academic Drummer) and went into jazz, I found Floyd music very plain and predictable compared to any other classic prog rock bands, even some non prog bands like Led Zep or Queen I still found interesting things. I know Floyd have some prog elements like conceptual themes, "atmosphere" and very sophisticated production starting from DSOTM, but among those sound effects, simply cannot conceive them as real prog rock as I already said plus Nick Mason's drumming very boring for me. In my opinion they were progressive in their music, (reaching a climax on Animals), but not progressive as the genre itself. They musically speaking (no sound effects) were not so experimental like for Example Beatles circa 66 when they start adding modal scales from India, jazzy chords and more sophisticated harmony than Floyd (specifically Gilmour) did ever, (Guess their only phrygian song was set the controls... and still basic). Actually Floyd music can be played by amateurs or by musicians with basics on musical formation. but for example King Crimson music or Soft Mahcine music (Or any other classic prog band else) is hard to play even for professional musicians.
@@hanckk2546 Take a listen to A Sprinkling of Clouds by Gong, they were experimenting in 74' with heavy sound effects and jaming for 10 minutes like monsters through a 5+5+5+9/8 time signature, space style like floyd but jazzy harmony and virtuosic elements, that for me would sound Floyd if they were real prog (or like Eloy 76-79 era).
Well done, you nailed it succinctly
What's crazy is the 5 subs and 3k views
Haha yes. The views probably come from the video being watched mostly off of KZhead.
Thank u
Nice.
I wish he could touch on progressive electronic music and how it progressed from the rock scene to the trance and acid genres :(
I like to consider Prog to be synonymous with Post-Psychedelic. Though technically the term Progressive in music existed back in the 1940s with Progressive Jazz, the general idea was to push past what was considered Normal at the time, not entirely just to push music further because, as a whole, Progressive Rock didn't actually do a bunch in terms of pushing the boundaries of music forward, aside from The Beatles and Pink Floyd. What it really did was push the boundaries for OTHER Prog bands down the line. Rush is unanimously considered Prog, but they never really contributed anything to music apart from displaying their own talents. Their style harkens back to the progress of bands like Led Zeppelin, Genesis, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Sure they added a bit of Nerdy Sci-Fi to their sound and that did impact a lot of the 1980s video game-influenced Heavy Metal. But that's not why we deem them Prog. We deem them Prog because of their odd time signatures, grand epics, complex instrumentation, and fantasy-inspired lyrics. All of which already existed in those same bands I listed above. Regardless we consider Rush to be one of the Top 3 Prog Bands in music. Contrast this with artists that do push the boundaries of music forward and successfully influence other artists going forward. For example, Michael Jackson. Along with Quincy Jones in 1979, Jackson embarked on a quest to form a new sound of Pop music to replace Disco which had just died a fiery death at Comiskey Park in July of that year. They released Off The Wall which was intended to be a prototype for a new sound that included Funk, Disco, Soul, R&B, and Pop. However, it wasn't enough to change music going forward. That is until Jackson befriended the Rock band Queen in 1980 and convinced them to release their song Another One Bites The Dust as a single which they were incredibly skeptical of doing. But they did, and it became their highest charting single in the US. After this, Jackson discovered what he was missing; Rock! His next album would be a combination of the genres found in Off The Wall with a hint of more aggressive rhythms and guitars found typically in Rock music. That album was Thriller, and it became the best selling album of all time! After this, many Pop and R&B artists began to use this same formula and continued to make big hits, new genres and styles, and influence more and more artists along the way. By definition, Michael Jackson progressed music forward and no one can deny that. But we don't consider him Progressive Pop, do we? So why do we consider bands like Rush who haven't necessarily done much in pushing music forward "Progressive", but not artists like Michael Jackson who have indeed pushed music forward? The answer is simple: Progressive music is not defined by the word "Progressive", but rather defined for being atypical and intentionally avoiding simplicity. More importantly, Progressive music is characterised by its experimentation of multiple genres with respect to the structures of Classical compositions. In short, it combines music of the past with music of the future in attempts to differ from popular trends. Michael Jackson, while harnessing music of the past, was too close to that music in the timeline, whereas Rush all existed centuries after artists like Mozart, Chopin and Bach. They took elements of what made Classical music so great and simply put it through guitars, bass, drums, and keyboards to achieve the same effect but obviously with intent to sound completely new. This explains why so many Progressive Rock bands often sound very symphonic in sound and are often seen playing Classical songs or Classical-like songs on their albums. Another genre that is often in the same place as Classical is Jazz. Especially with bands like King Crimson and Pink Floyd, Jazz has frequently been used in Progressive Rock, often giving it a softer and more introspective approach, which explains the two general styles of Prog being either large, complex, and 20-minute epics or softer, lyrical, and subtle experiences. One is Classically-influenced and the other is Jazz influenced. These types can also exist simultaneously and is often the case with later Progressive bands like Dream Theater, Primus, and Tool, though such newer bands picked up a little 70s genre known as Funk, again, of which existed about 20-30 years prior to them. In conclusion, the best definition I can muster up is as follows: Progressive music is a subgenre type of multiple genres, mainly Rock, Pop, Metal, and Jazz, that exists to be atypical and non-simplistic, combining past and future musical ideas and structures with the intent to push music forward, often through Classical and/or Jazz influences and experimentation into futuristic/avant-garde sounds and styles. This often includes odd time signatures, lengthy song durations, challenging of the form, and fantasy/concept-based lyrics and/or albums. I say "intent", meaning that may not always happen, but it is undoubtedly a common goal for Prog bands. And like many genre definitions, this may not apply to every Progressive Band. But I challenge anyone reading to identify a band that doesn't at least fall into some parts of the definition.
Prog music afficinados know exactly what the term refers to. His description is accurate and honest. There were and are several bands who created progressive music without even knowing it, that's the magic of artist expression. Just because you may be lumped into a genre or category by the media doesn't mean you have to live there.
I think any concept album that goes on a journey is progressive rock.
IMO King Crimson was the best… “Elephant Talk” one of my favs
Starting simple ending complex
3:52 can anyone tell me the name of the song in bg?
I don't think most people are aware of Soft Machine nor do I think they would generally be considered "classic rock."
Song at 4.10?
What is the song that plays @ 4:46 ?
sounds like mahvishnu orchestra
Can someone name the song at 4:35
What makes Houses of the Holy prog rock?
Idk. Physical Graffiti is a better prog album
I like the freedom of progressive music.
is Rush prog?
What's that song that started @ 4:20
As well as the song that started @ 4:50 lol
Prog Rock must earn the title only after having proven to further development of compositional style which includes elements from several world music sources with which the players have become somewhat comfortable expressing themselves. No small set of formulae should be employed to base production of addition iterations. Composition needs to express any creativeness the players are growing into. Growth and not simply juggling of elements and twists of phrases, without which the title of "progressive" does not apply.
houses of the holy prog ha
Jojo's Bizarre Adventure brought me here
Ok
In my opinion the Beatles were just starting to flirt with prog with the Abbey Road medley.
ProgOn! #atlascube
Therefore Pink Floyd , ELP, ELO...early albums are Progressive!
Progressive rock is psychedelic rock without the overt drug references.
His body is so robotic!
Kerry Livgren, KANSAS, is the best composer ever
"...not so much a genre as an approach to making music...", "Progressive rock... it's a desire to go beyond the formulaic...". You, Sir, hit the nail on the head. "Prog rock" is not and was never a strictly defined genre of music. It's a tendency to go beyond the simple song format of rock music that first appeared in the late 1960's. It's a tendency to broaden the original narrow formula of rock and incorporate non-rock elements into it. It is NOT a genre. And by the way, "classic rock", "alternative rock", "college rock" are also not genres. Dixieland jazz, be bop, bluegrass, rockabilly, beat music, hard rock, punk rock, heavy metal, noise rock, hip hop, drum 'n' bass, acid house, death metal, hardcore, electronic body music, surf rock are genres. Prog is not a genre.
Kraftwerk?
Kraftwerk are krautrock
Is Phish Prog??
+man gough To some extent yes. Have you heard Umphrey's McGee? They combine jam band with prog stuff.
Mani Goug or Rush
yes they are. junta is easily one of the best prog albums of all time
Progressive music is music that starts off slow or soft and gets progressively faster or harder
How tf did he not mention Rush when listing examples in the beginning? They’re practically The Godfather’s of prog rock
storeeteller1 No we aren’t, but Rush undeniably transformed prog and brought it to the masses in way that none of those bands did before it. There’s a reason that nearly every modern prog band cites Rush as a major influence.
Oh, was he supposed to list every fucking band on the planet? That would've served so much to the point of the sentence
king crimson, yes, soft machine, etc had their feet deep in the ground years before Rush even released their first album
Led Zeppelin’s “ Achille’s Last Stand “ is quintessential prog akin to Pink Floyd’s “ Shine on You Crazy Diamond “. Prog is a chord progression or “ texture “ that subtlety manifests into a mind blowing musical experience and returns back to its origin to take you down gently from the journey.
Have to admit, when I heard "inclusive" I got triggered.
Progressive lol I heard that term before 👎🏼
Never did go away. Like herpes. 😅
This explains absolutely nothing
yeah I feel like he was saying so much without actually saying anything. all I got was "it's the way you think while making music"
Prog/ progressive should be eliminated as a music category. It's a term assholes use to make you feel bad about the music you enjoy.
so thats what happened to chicago