I don't feel it's a matter of pushing boundaries. More a matter of creating within more expansive boundaries, such as working in odd time signatures and using time tested musical structures like counterpoint etc. Then the art of it is finding melodic sensibility within that and keeping the focus on playing or tracking live…. keeping that quality musicianship at the forefront and showing that live music can be executed without having to rely upon all the latest technological fads, gadgets and so forth.

The word progressive is not a good word to describe, because it insists that it leaves it's origins. Great jazz or classical music doesn't need to change radically to have relevance even in the contemporary world.

This is true, however in the seventies (and late sixties) it was called progressive because the musicians were doing something that really hadn't been done before in rock, like using new instruments, going beyond the structured three-minute-single song format, composing long instrumentals, and progressing beyond what was seen as the norm, or accepted format of the time. Now, these days, yeah, it seems silly to describe it as progressive rock, but then, some bands who are labelled as nu-metal are about as new as an episode of Friends, so labels stick and there's nothing much you can do about it really.

The problem is that one could argue that 'Progressive" means we have to leave the instruments in their cases and do all the music on a computer. I have heard younger artists make this argument that "garageband" and "protools" are the instruments of this generation, and that the kids these days are just using the tools available to them, just like Pink Floyd did etc.

I think that is a shallow argument because if there was one defining thing about prog rock in the golden age was that you often had highly skilled musicians coming into the rock genre, classical and jazz musicians who where composing and executing the pieces in basically a rock format. For instance, a jazz drummer playing on a large rock kit. A classical guitarist playing on a Fender start or a classically trained pianist on a Hammond Organ, Moog or Rhodes electric.

The idea that "rock" now had validity to the older folks was really something new. It wasn't just folksy guitarists playing through loud amplification.

Um. That's an interesting view on it, I guess.

That is an idiotic concept. If the "older folks" were worried about rock's "validity", then the older folks should have been more worried about their irrational inferiority complex for listening to pop music. If you think that adding jazz and classical influences to rock makes it somehow more valid, then you just have a shallow concept of music.

I think 70's style prog is far from being exhausted in originality. If you look at what you had then, the blending of styles, all of those styles could be explored in much more detail.

Complex Latin Rock: Santana
Classical Rock: YES, Renaissance.
Complex Folk Rock: Jethro Tull
Jazz Rock: Mahavishnu Orchestra
Complex Surrealism Rock: Gabriel era Genesis
Complex Metal Rock: Scorpions, UFO
Psychedelic Rock: Pink Floyd
Synth Rock: Tangerine Dream
Funk Rock: Stevie Wonder
Complex Blues Rock: Led Zeppelin
Complex Comedy Rock: Frank Zappa
Complex Acid Jazz Rock: King Crimson, Gentle Giant

And so forth…


I think there could be another 10 bands that explore each of those sub genres with slight variations that would not necessarily sound overly derivative. A different vocalist, unique soloists, composers etc. There is still a lot of room. There is no reason we could not have had another 30 or 40 years of really interesting rock music that would fall under the style of 70's progressive rock.

For example, I don't think there ever was a band that really did complex Indian Rock, or took that where it could have gone. You certainly had artists dabbling there, but there could have been a band that really nailed it in a way Santana did with Latin rock.

The older generation that grew up on big band and classical music thought all rock music was silly and lacked serious musicianship. Bringing in trained musicians into rock did give the genre a new sense of validity to the older folks who wrote it off an just nonsense.

Take for instance Deep Purple who I forgot to mention.
Ritchie Blackmore loved classical music and Medieval music and brought that into rock.
Jon Lord had classical training then blended that with a distorted Hammond Organ. Throw in a singer who did the lead in Jesus Christ Superstar and you have a very unique offering of music into the rock world.

Yeah. Like I said. Dumb. And I highly doubt any Frank Sinatra fans were that enthused about Yes.