When did progressive stop becoming an approach to music and become a genre?

[AlphaMale]

It seems like there is a few set sounds of what progressive music sounds like now. From my understanding progressive wasn't about copying anyone but it seems like all the bands that are considered to be progressive sound very similar; and it's not that they're copying each other but sticking to the same slightly different ideas. Sounding like Rush was progressive when Rush came out, using those same elements now kind of makes you regressive. Excessive effects or technicality have been done to death also. But I can't blame all the bands, it is really hard to create something new. Most progressive music, especially rock looks to older music for inspiration now, but is looking to the fast really moving things forward? Jazz and Classical time signatures and harmonies awesome but they aren't new, not even to rock. The progressive rock style has become such a set sound that some people when they read the title of this thread thought to themselves, "Progressive is a genre." But if the music is truly progressive, you shouldn't be able to generalize it. Or maybe I am wrong and it is time to choose. Is progressive music about truly making music that moves forward musically breaking boundaries set by genre and the traditional ideas of what music should sound like or what kind of reaction it should draw. Are we looking for Traditional Or maybe even Regressive progressive music that only does what Yes, John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk, Louis Armstrong, King Crimson, Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, Frank Zappa, Miles Davis, Rush, Ornette Coleman and countless other artists/bands that sought more from music have already done thus making it a genre; in which we are able to describe what it should sound like and what reactions it should get, or is progressive rock about changing out approach to music, what it should sound like, what it's function is, what understanding is between the musicians, and what reaction should be drawn from the listener, or should we even care at all how the listener reacts. This is note to say at all that by not doing something new you're doing something bad. Mercedes made a car with four wheels, doesn't mean no one else should be allowed to. It's just not what should be called progressive. What are your thoughts?

[baalroo]

There's still tons of music being made that is "progressive" in the true sense of the word. "Progessive" has just come to be associated with bands like Yes and Rush, and thus it became a genre label for other bands that sound like them. "Progressive" as a label for music that is actually "progressive" is inapropriate because the nature of being progressive means it's unlikely those bands will actually sound similiar. The point of genre titles is to associate bands by how the SOUND not how technical they are.

[lunarpollen]

"Progressive" as a label first began to be applied in the late 60's to certain psychedelic bands who were stretching the boundaries of composition, song structure, arrangements, etc., taking rock music away from the typical "verse chorus bridge" pop conventions. As to when it actually stopped being "progressive" as an adjective is probably in the ears of the beholder. Progress is a relative thing. What some people consider progressive or more evolved might be considered pretentious or even regressive to other people.

[Mark Latimour]

If I remember correctly, it was Tuesday, May 4, 1981.

[Bard2dbone]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

If I remember correctly, it was Tuesday, May 4, 1981.

No. No. No. It was Thursday, the sixth. Remember they had to cancel the original meeting because of the weather?

It's a real pain to be one of the worldwide arbiters of all entertainment media terminology when you have allergies.

[Rune Bivrin]

No different than other genre designators. They start out describing an aspect of the music or artist, but are sooner or later converted into some other meaning, whether more general or more specific.

• Pop: Short for popular. Now often taken to mean early to mid 60:s type music.
• Indie: Short for independent. Used to designate artists on record companies without ties to the big ones. Now mainly means poorly arranged and recorded guitar rock (as I understand it).
• Metal: Has taken the place of hard rock. Needs to be qualified with things like "speed", "thrash" or "death" to mean anything (allthough I can't tell the difference)
• Folk: Started out as renditions of traditional songs. Now means "has listened too much to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez".

[Rune Bivrin]

BTW, shouldn't the title be When did progressive stop being an approach to music and become a genre?

Also, I think the OP should look at things like sentence structure, punctuation and paragraphs. That was my first thought, to be honest.

[Bard2dbone]

Originally Posted by Rune Bivrin

No different than other genre designators. They start out describing an aspect of the music or artist, but are sooner or later converted into some other meaning, whether more general or more specific.

• Pop: Short for popular. Now often taken to mean early to mid 60:s type music.
• Indie: Short for independent. Used to designate artists on record companies without ties to the big ones. Now mainly means poorly arranged and recorded guitar rock (as I understand it).
• Metal: Has taken the place of hard rock. Needs to be qualified with things like "speed", "thrash" or "death" to mean anything (allthough I can't tell the difference)
• Folk: Started out as renditions of traditional songs. Now means "has listened too much to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez".

But I LIKE folk.

Modern folk is a pretty huge musical umbrella. I tell people it's like Country without the twang or like Rock, but acoustic. It's actually a pretty broad spectrum. The folk music festival that I attend every summer has old-school Gypsy jazz, many many kinds of roots music and Americana, a surprising number of people doing acoustic versions of songs that were top-40 stuff a decade or four ago. ..

It's a lot more than Bob and Joan anymore.

[AlphaMale]

Originally Posted by Rune Bivrin

No different than other genre designators. They start out describing an aspect of the music or artist, but are sooner or later converted into some other meaning, whether more general or more specific.

• Pop: Short for popular. Now often taken to mean early to mid 60:s type music.
• Indie: Short for independent. Used to designate artists on record companies without ties to the big ones. Now mainly means poorly arranged and recorded guitar rock (as I understand it).
• Metal: Has taken the place of hard rock. Needs to be qualified with things like "speed", "thrash" or "death" to mean anything (allthough I can't tell the difference)
• Folk: Started out as renditions of traditional songs. Now means "has listened too much to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez".

[*]Soundtrack: Music that appears on a soundtrack and not really a type of music.
[*]Christian: Modern Pop music focused on Christianity. (Notice Handel's Messiah is not what most people would consider Christian Music, and there is a big difference between that and Gospel.)
[*]Classic Rock: Rock music made in a certain time frame.
[*]R&B: Black Pop music.
[*]Electronic music or Electro-acoustic music: Type of music describing the music of people like Edgar Varese and other Musique Concrete composers. But anyone with a synthesizer or computer can be considered electronic music or electro-acoustic music by defining it by this quality. Who is to say Daft Punk isn't Electronic music? or Any band with an Acoustic Drum kit and Keyboard could be considered Electro-acoustic.




But yeah progressive rock isn't really about moving things forward but creating music based off the innovations of bands that were moving forward and were progressive at there time.

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Fragile, maybe?

[Basshappi]

Labelling or genreization(?) is inevitable.

I never cared for the term "Progressive". I always thought that "Fusion" was a more accurate term in that the music was fusing elements of classical, folk, and jazz music with rock. Just like "Fusion" jazz was the combining of rock music elements with jazz as well as the incorporation of modern electronic instruments, most notably synths.

I believe that there is still quite a bit of "Fusion" going on both musically and technologically but, like most music, one must sift through much garbage to find the good stuff.

But ultimately what difference does it make? Labels are for the ease of marketing and what some marketing department chooses to classify a style of music is irrelevent. Go create and don't worry about what to call it. After all there are only to kinds of music; Good and Bad if your music is good people will want to listen to it, if it's bad they won't.


Cheers

[MysticMichael]

I know. This is a pet peeve of mine as well...

It's kind of like the way the label "alternative" stopped being dynamic - and instead became static - mired in the particular stylistic elements that were in vogue at its inception.

Personally, I prefer your take on "progressive" - which is why my tastes have been evolving, thus staying more current with what is genuinely progressive...

MM

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by Rune Bivrin

Also, I think the OP should look at things like sentence structure, punctuation and paragraphs. That was my first thought, to be honest.

I must concur...

MM

[bongomania]

I remember the word "progressive" being used as a genre back in the late 70's. I think that's a bit before the OP was born.

[terryfunk4life]

http://www.myspace.com/haudanmaa Ladies and gents I give you a new genre of music progressive folk metal.

[Rune Bivrin]

Originally Posted by Bard2dbone

But I LIKE folk.

Modern folk is a pretty huge musical umbrella. I tell people it's like Country without the twang or like Rock, but acoustic. It's actually a pretty broad spectrum. The folk music festival that I attend every summer has old-school Gypsy jazz, many many kinds of roots music and Americana, a surprising number of people doing acoustic versions of songs that were top-40 stuff a decade or four ago. ..

It's a lot more than Bob and Joan anymore.

Agreed. I was being facetious. I like folk too, except the "harmonica as a breathalyzer" trait.

But it's a good demonstration of how genre designations evolve. The simple truth is that for genre designators to be meaningful, we'd need almost as many genres as there are artists.

[Bard2dbone]

Originally Posted by Rune Bivrin

Agreed. I was being facetious. I like folk too, except the "harmonica as a breathalyzer" trait.

But it's a good demonstration of how genre designations evolve. The simple truth is that for genre designators to be meaningful, we'd need almost as many genres as there are artists.

That reminded me of a guy I saw a year or two ago. He was getting ready to go on stage and quietly making his harmonica do some awful sounds. It was bad enough that I thought 'Why does this guy even bring a harmonica? He sucks." Then after he was onstage and he brought out the harmonica neck-brace-thing, I sort of cringed inwardly, expecting more awfulness. In stead he was amazing.

And later in the show he blew up a balloon while telling a story, then he let the balloon deflate through the lowest note on the harmonica while he played a VERY busy traditional piece over the drone. He described it as 'Oklahoma Bagpipes'.