Ä Area: 60s_70s_Prog 
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
  Msg#: 119                                          Date: 10-10-96  22:05
  From: Mike Taylor                                  Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: Carmen Presti                                Mark:                    
 
  Subj: Prog Defined
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
As moderator of this echo, I am often asked to define 
Progressive Rock.  As a whole, this is futile because 
everyone has a different vision of "progressive." However, I will try to make 
clear what it means for this echo:
The biggest problem stems from the literal defintion of progressive.  
Progress means improvement or moving forward.  By using 
this definition, progressive music will never sound the 
same as it will always be moving forward into new and 
unexplored areas.  For example, if a band's first album is a radical and new 
direction in muZ
progressive.  If the second album is exactly the same style as the first, no 
progress has been made so it is *not* a 
progressive album.  Yet, it may still be considered a 
progressive album because the *style* on the first album 
was progressive.  Remember this point while we jump back in time to 1969.
All through the late '60s, the rock bands were enjoying incredible 
experimental freedom in the studio and the Psychedelic era 
was flourishing. Bands were moving beyond the 3-4 minute 
song into long psychedelic explorations that often lasted 
an entire LP side.  At the same time, other bands, such as the Nice, were 
using Classical motifs set in a Rock 
foundation. Classical structures provided a complexity of 
time and key that was previously little used in Rock music. 
 Looking back, it seems natural that the structure of 
Classical music would mate with the psychedelic 
explorations.  Progressive Rock was born.
Of course, these bands didn't say, "Hey, we just created Progressive Rock!" 
It was simply a natural result of studio experimentation 
and freedom, and the public was eating it up.  It was the 
media and record moguls who first used the term progressive to explain the 
new style of Rock.  Compared to the 
Psychedelic Rock of 1966-1968, this new style was indeed 
progress.  However, progressive was an unfortunate term.  
Countless bands released music during that era, most of it very similar in 
style to each other.  There were bands 
influenced by Yes, bands influenced by Genesis, and bands 
influenced by King Crimson, though none of them truly broke new territory.  
Yet, they were still called progressive 
bands.  Why?  Recall the point I made above.  All these 
bands played in a *style* that had been termed progressive. 
 It is at this juncture that we are no longer talking about the literal 
definition of progress.  Instead, we are 
talking about a genre, that known as Progressive Rock.  
Note that I've use capitalization to designate the genre, 
while a lower case "p" indicates the definitive use of the word progressive.  
The misnomer of the genre, I believe, is the main source of misunderstanding 
as people try to 
categorize bands as Progressive (progressive?) or not.
Now is a good time to define the style of Progressive Rock. 
 I can hear an album and decide for myself if it is 
Progressive.  But I lack the verbal skills to translate 
what I hear into words.  However, a friend, Mike Feathers, once wrote a very 
apt definition of the genre.  By far, 
this is one of the most successful attempts at defining the style as I have 
seen:
"Progressive seems to be more like the mixture of a style and an attitude. 
The style may have the following elements (but doesn't need all of them to 
qualify): shifting meters and keys, episodic sectional compositions, heavy 
reliance on harmony from 
western classical music, early psych, or jazz fusion. All 
of this is usually approached from the rock perspective 
using the dynamics and aggressive approach of that form of music.  The 
attitude is one of exploration and ruthless 
exploitation of complexity in all its forms: rhythmic, 
melodic, harmonic, and architectural.  Again, not all these elements may be 
present at once, but they often are.  The 
last thing I'll mention about attitude is that progressive musicians 
generally have no problem adopting the stylings 
of classical music if they are the most appropriate ones 
for conveying a particular mood or texture."
What you must now realize is that this echo is for the discussion of 
Progressive Rock, the genre.  There are countless bands 
that may be progressive (moving forward) and that is a good thing.  But 
progressive rock is not what this echo is 
about; Progressive Rock is the sole reason for this echo.
There is one caveat: You will also see occasional pure jazz and classical 
discussion on occasion.  This is because 1) we (me and the 
original moderators) didn't like the slant of the Fidonet 
JAZZ echo and 2) there is no place to discuss Classical 
music.  As many Progressive fans are also fans of Jazz and Classical, we 
expanded the boundaries of this echo. This 
does not make this echo a free-for-all for any band from 
the '60s or '70s though it may seem that way.  Thus, if you are unsure of an 
artist's suitability for this echo, I 
suggest that you ask me first. Please bear in mind that if I rule against 
your favorite band, I am not saying the band is bad or you have poor tastes.  
This echo is very 
specialized and I am merely saying, using the guidelines 
above, your band does not fit within its scope.
I should make mention of one other potentially confusing fact:  The official 
Fidonet tag name for this echo is 60S_70S_PROGROCK, to 
signify discussion of a core discussion of Progressive Rock from the late 
'60s and through the mid '70s.  Some sysops, 
however, may name the echo something else entirely, such as '60s & '70s Rock. 
 This gives users of that system the 
impression that this echo is for discussion of *all* Rock 
music from that era.  As I hope I have made clear, that is not the case.  If 
you are a user of such a system, I would 
appreciate it if you would pass this message along to the 
sysop and ask him or her to change the name to Progressive Rock or other 
suitable title.
I hope this messages has made some (ahem!) progress toward your complete 
understanding of the scope and purpose of 
this echo.  Please don't hesitate to ask if you have other questions.
Mike Taylor, 1:396/11.6
Moderator, 60S_70S_PROGROCK
-!- Obolus 1.0.2
 ! Origin: water flowing underneath and all around my world (1:396/11.6)
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------