Rainard Jalen

I don't think it does - I think it depends upon the two factors of A: how the term is conventionally used, and B: whether or not the artists themselves would identify with it.

Prog as I see it is a controversial term, for one, which has generally been used to refer to a specific type of rock band and fanbase rather than clear stylistic elements. It's not the music one makes but rather whether or not they can fall in by association.



ProggyMan, we had a similar discussion before, but about 'rock' itself. It is curious that you can even call Radiohead in the sense of e.g. "In Rainbows" / "Kid A" 'rock' music at all, given that you think 'rock' has stylistic criteria.



But that's the whole point: "progressive" in a musical context doesn't MEAN anything! Does it mean to suggest that non-prog music doesn't contain sonic progression? It's a bullsh*t term! The punk band Television had an awful lot more sonic progression than most of those redundant bland insipid prog bands who really just aped each other. Why don't we call their music progressive?

Progressive means nothing at all. It's one of the stupidest terms ever coined. Even some great pioneers of "prog" such as Fripp rejected the term and thought it a load of nonsense. Let's not apply such a vague, controversial term so freely, but rather on whether a band fits it by association. It's more of a movement, at the end of the day.

I mean, hell... I used to think TOOL were experimental. I then had a look at indie music, and came across stuff so much more wildly experimental than Tool that it wasn't funny. And yet, there'd be absolutely no context in which it would be described as prog. Radiohead are just that - an experimental band.