Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?

Guybrush · 12-07-2012, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

I always thought progressive simply meant the song progressed (not that the genre was progressive), using similar composition to classical music over pop songs. So once the instrumentals changed then they would never revert back to exactly the same combination of rhythm/structure/notes as before, so no chorus etc. While the rock referred to being guitar based.

But the first progressive band were always associated with a certain style (psychadelic) so that's sort of stuck.

I think you can come up with a great personal definition of what you think makes progressive rock, but there's no real authority out there to govern what the term means or how to use it. The label is generously applied to a lot of music which is not very well described by how you just defined it.

A quick example can be the song "Dinosaur" by King Crimson. Looking at the song's wikipedia page, it says the genre is Progressive Rock. If you look at discogs which is a release database, the entry for the album that the song is on has Art Rock and Prog Rock as styles. It seems the general consensus is that it's a prog rock song.

Yet, when you listen to it, it is pretty much structured as a pop song with verses and very catchy, recurring refrains.

If you discuss music with prog enthusiasts, you will always discuss a lot of music which may not sound very progressive as if it is. And who's to tell them it isn't? Or is it?