Talk:Progressive rock

Contentious unsourced material

The following section is unsourced and has been tagged since August as problematic. It might come from a scholarly source and be very helpful, or it could be poorly informed opinion. As it is unsourced, we do not know, and as it hasn't been sourced since it has been tagged, then a removal here is appropriate. Editors may look for sources to support the statements and then return the material to the article. If sources cannot be found within a reasonable space of time, then the material will be archived. SilkTork *^YES! 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The material appears to be a cut and paste from [1], though it might be the case that progarchives.com copied it from here. To be safe, I have tagged it as a copyvio to allow experts in the matter to look into it. SilkTork *^YES! 01:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked into it, and the website acknowledges that it comes from Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 02:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know (but I am not an expert on Prog-Rock), these characteristics are by and large correct. Maybe it is a nice idea if we looked for sources for each of these claims and then we restore the claims where we have found sources for?--Merijn2 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Musical characteristics

Form: Progressive rock music either avoids common popular music song structures of verse-chorus-bridge, or blurs the formal distinctions by extending sections or inserting musical interludes, often with exaggerated dynamics to heighten contrast between sections. Classical forms are often inserted or substituted, sometimes yielding entire suites, building on the traditional medleys of earlier rock bands. Progressive rock music also often has extended instrumental passages, marrying the classical solo tradition with the improvisational traditions of jazz and psychedelic rock. All of these tend to add length to progressive rock music pieces, which may last longer than twenty minutes and are usually not "songs" per se, but musical works that have a lot more in common with more established musical concepts.

Timbre: (instrumentation and tone color): Early progressive rock groups expanded the timbral palette of traditional rock instrumentation of guitar, organ, bass, and drums by adding instruments more typical of jazz or folk music, such as flute, saxophone, and violin, and more often than not used electronic keyboards, synthesizers, and electronic effects units. Some instruments – most notably the Moog synthesizer, the Mellotron and the Hammond organ – have become closely associated with the genre.

Rhythm: Drawing on their classical, jazz, folk and experimental influences, progressive rock artists are more likely to explore time signatures other than 4/4 and tempo changes. Progressive rock generally tends to be freer in its rhythmic approach than other forms of rock music. The approach taken varies across different works but may range from regular beats, such as 4/4, to unusual compound time signatures, such as 9/8, to asymmetrical meters, more prevalent in Eastern music, such as 5/8 and 7/8.

Melody and harmony: In progressive rock, the blues inflections of mainstream rock are often supplanted by jazz and classical influences. Melodies are more likely to be modal than based on the pentatonic scale, and are more likely to comprise longer, developing passages than short, catchy ones. Chords and chord progressions may be augmented with 6th, 7th, 9th, and compound intervals; and the I-IV-V is much less common. Allusions to, or even direct quotes from, well-known classical themes are common. Some bands (notably King Crimson) have used atonal or dissonant harmonies, and a few, such as Henry Cow, Shub-Niggurath, and 5uu's, have even worked with rudimentary serialism.

Texture and imagery: Ambient soundscapes and theatrical elements may be used to describe scenes, events or other aspects of the concept. For example, leitmotif is used to represent the various characters in Genesis' "Harold the Barrel" (from Nursery Cryme) and "Robbery, Assault and Battery" (from A Trick of the Tail), and more literally, the sounds of clocks and cash registers are used to represent time and money in Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.

Other characteristics

Technology: To aid timbral exploration, progressive rock bands were often early adopters of new electronic musical instruments and technologies. The analog synthesizer is the instrument best associated with progressive rock – for example, the modular Moog used by ELP, the Minimoog by Yes, the ARP Pro Soloist by Genesis, and the Oberheim by Styx. The mellotron, particularly, was a signature sound of early progressive bands. Pink Floyd utilized an EMS Synthi A synthesizer equipped with a sequencer on their track "On the Run" from their 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon. In the late 1970s, Robert Fripp, of King Crimson, and Brian Eno developed an analog tape loops effect (Frippertronics). In the 1980s, Frank Zappa used the Synclavier for composing and recording, and King Crimson utilized MIDI-enabled guitars, the Chapman Stick, and electronic percussion.

Concept albums: Collections of songs unified by an elaborate, overarching theme or story, are common to progressive rock. As songs by progressive rock acts tend to be quite long, such collections have frequently exceeded the maximum length of recorded media, resulting in packages that require multiple vinyl discs, cassettes, or compact discs in order to present a single album. Concepts have included the historical, fantastical and metaphysical, and have even, in the case of Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, poked fun at concept albums. One very well-known example is Genesis's The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, an album about a boy named Rael who undergoes different adventures in search of his brother John.

Lyrical themes: Progressive rock typically has lyrical ambition similar to its musical ambition, tending to avoid typical rock/pop subjects such as love, dancing, etc., rather inclining towards the kinds of themes found in classical literature, fantasy, folklore, social commentary or all of these. Peter Gabriel (Genesis) often wrote surreal stories to base his lyrics around, sometimes including theatrical elements with several characters, while Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) combined social criticism with personal struggles with greed, madness, and death. Modern bands such as Muse, who use progressive elements in their songs, often use themes such as war and repression by government (especially in the former's case) in their writing. Muse's third album Absolution (album) is based around the apocalypse, and Matt Bellamy has also used science fiction to inform his lyrics on songs such as Unnatural Selection, Newborn, Exo-politics and the Exogenesis symphony.

Presentation: Album art and packaging is often an important part of the artistic concept. This trend can be seen to have begun with The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and played a major part in the marketing of progressive rock. Some bands became as well known for the art direction of their albums as for their sound, with the "look" integrated into the band's overall musical identity. This led to fame for particular artists and design studios, most notably Roger Dean for his work with Yes, and Hipgnosis for their work with Pink Floyd and several other progressive rock groups.

Stage theatrics: Beginning in the early 1970s, some progressive rock bands began incorporating elaborate and sometimes flamboyant stage theatrics into their concerts. Genesis lead singer Peter Gabriel wore many different colourful and exotic costumes within each show and frequently acted out the lyrical narrative of the songs, Pink Floyd would utilize burning gongs and crashing airplanes and inflatables, Yes incorporated futuristic stage sets designed by Roger Dean, performing 'in-the-round', and one of ELP's many stage antics included Emerson's "flying piano" at the California Jam concert, in which a Steinway grand piano would be spun from a hoist. Now-days bands such as Uzbek FromUz also include theatrical elements in their shows

Suggestion: list and/or web links of Prog Rock magazines

Hi all, as yet I haven't come accross a reasonable list of print magazines about progressive rock in the internet (amazon.com does have a search function but it only includes a fraction of the magazines in print, probably due to legal reasons).
   I think a list of online and/or print magazines would be a valuable extension to the article. Alternatively, it could be put into an extra article.
   I'd also like to begin with a few google search results. Any ideas/feedback? --WikiReviewer.de (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However, there may be some debate as to what a "Prog magazine" is precisely... Baroque n Roll (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

More Mention of Postpunk bands

I think there needs more mentioning between the relationship between Progressive rock and Post-Punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerpyMcDerp (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Musical characteristics (again)

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Form: Progressive rock music either avoids common popular music song structures of verse-chorus-bridge, or blurs the formal distinctions by extending sections or inserting musical interludes, often with exaggerated dynamics to heighten contrast between sections. Classical forms are often inserted or substituted, sometimes yielding entire suites, building on the traditional medleys of earlier rock bands. Progressive rock music also often has extended instrumental passages, marrying the classical solo tradition with the improvisational traditions of jazz and psychedelic rock. All of these tend to add length to progressive rock music pieces; while some songs are about the same length as those in any other genre of popular music, others can last upwards of 20 minutes, resembling sonatas and other musical forms not typically encountered in rock.

Timbre: (instrumentation and tone color): Early progressive rock groups expanded the timbral palette of traditional rock instrumentation (guitar, bass, drums and sometimes piano or organ), adding instruments more typical of jazz or folk music, such as flute, saxophone, and violin, and more often than not used electronic keyboards, synthesizers, and electronic effects units. Some instruments – most notably the Moog synthesizer, the Mellotron and the Hammond organ – have become closely associated with the genre.

Rhythm: Drawing on their classical, jazz, folk and experimental influences, progressive rock artists are more likely than most other rock musicians to explore time signatures other than 4/4 and tempo changes. Progressive rock generally tends to be freer in its rhythmic approach than other forms of rock music. The approach taken varies across different works but may range from regular beats, such as 4/4, to unusual compound time signatures, such as 9/8, to asymmetrical meters, more prevalent in Eastern music, such as 5/8 and 7/8.

Melody and harmony: In progressive rock, the blues inflections of mainstream rock are often supplanted by jazz and classical influences. Melodies are more likely to be modal than based on the pentatonic scale, and are more likely to comprise longer, developing passages than short, catchy ones. Chords and chord progressions may be augmented with 6th, 7th, 9th, and compound intervals; and the I-IV-V is much less common than in more traditional forms of rock music. Allusions to, or even direct quotes from, well-known classical themes are common. Some bands (notably King Crimson) have used atonal or dissonant harmonies, and a few, such as Henry Cow, Shub-Niggurath, and 5uu's, have even worked with rudimentary serialism.

Texture and imagery: Ambient soundscapes and theatrical elements may be used to describe scenes, events or other aspects of the concept. For example, leitmotif is used to represent the various characters in Genesis' "Harold the Barrel" (from Nursery Cryme) and "Robbery, Assault and Battery" (from A Trick of the Tail), and more literally, the sounds of clocks and cash registers are used to represent time and money in Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.

This was added last month by an anonymous user with no edit summary or explanation. None of this is sourced, which means it was either lifted from a source without attribution, meaning a possible copyright violation, or it is original research and synthesis. In any case, it cannot be allowed in the article unless it is sourced. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I see above that this same material was removed almost a year ago by SilkTork. Clearly, in that time, no sources were ever found for these claims, and the material was obviously copied, again, from the same source. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, the article is essentially a History of section. Without Musical Characteristics, it is for all practical purposes a stub and not useful for a person who wants to understand how to differentiate between progressive and other subgenres of rock. Please find reliable sources and add some material, if not the same as the above-mentioned, to make the article useful to casual music fans. Easwarno1 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of the genre "progressive rock"

When, and who named this genre "progressive rock" at first? Japanese wikipedia says that the A&R man of Pink Floyd in Japan did it in early 1970s. Is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.169.248.167 (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a magazine interview somewhere with Robert Fripp from 1969 where he describes King Crimson as 'Progressive'. Anyone know the exact source? There was also an LP released in 1969 which had bands like Genesis and the Moody Blues and actually had "progressive Rock" on the sleeve. Also in 1969 Caravan's then-current LP said on the sleeve that it was "Progressive Rock". Take your pick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.172.84 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I would argue that the term, "Progressive Rock", mirrored the verbiage that "Acid Rock" or Psychedelic styles of music in the mid 1960s (1965 The Grateful Dead). Many other terms floated around in the late 1960s like "Classical Rock" after 1966 with the eclectic Zappa album, Freak Out, and the Beatles Revolver album, or 1967 (Moody Blues The Days of Future Past), and 1968's Tommy by the Who. The term, "Progressive Rock" is more of a fall out term generated by fans and the music industry. Popular Music and become "electric" like Bob Dylan in 1965. So much was happening in the music industry that I am not sure that the term, "Progressive Rock", was even used prior to about 1975. The Soft Machine were considered a Psychedelic group in 1967 and bill that way on posters from England in 1966, 1967, and in 1968 in USA.The Budzone guy 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

Festivals

I took the pruning shears to the Festivals section. There were a whole lot of festivals listed there for which there was no attendant article, many were unsourced, and those that were had merely a link to the webpage for the festival. This is not sufficient. Such a link only proves that the festival exists, it says nothing about its notability. I left those entries that had WP articles, but the future of that section should be discussed here before anything is added to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond and Before recent book on genre

http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133175&SubjectId=1381&Subject2Id=1396

No real place in this article for external links so I will leave it to the article veterans for placement if anyt

Added external link section for this. Edkollin (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I got it and it doesn't really follow the widely-recognised definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.204 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just a heads up I will be cleaning this up in the near future. Anything unreferenced, or improperly refernced will be removed . Anything that is simply a name drop of band X and not actually about the genre will be removed. The endless growing lists of band any time an example is given will be cut back. Ridernyc (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. I have been thinking that this was overdue.--SabreBD (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's so bad I may just take it userspace for a hatchet job and then present it here. The more you look at the more you find little things that slipped in. Ridernyc (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a first stab at an edit here [2]. Removed tons of stuff that was just name dropping bands with no real commentary on the genre. There was also an entire section called "Early Bands" that just listed band after band.. With no substantive discussion of the genre. Feel free to make comments. Ridernyc (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments

The following was left on my talk page and really belongs here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information in new movements in progressive rock / related genres

As you may have noticed there has been a recent surge in interest in progressive music by musicians & fans alike.As a long time follower of Progressive Rock since around 1977 I feel that Wikipedia does not fully represent this current trent very well at all.This is disappointing as I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be a primary resourse for information.As it can be updated immediately you would think it would contain the most up to date general information guide (yes, there are far more detailed information out there from niche orientated internet sites). In recent times there have been many musicians that have, perhaps come from different genres of music that have taken influences from Progressive Rock itself & other genres that have been influenced by it i.e. Metal, Post-Punk, New Wave, certain areas of Alternative Rock, Post-rock, Math rock etc & other genres of music & experimented with these influences to create fresh sounding forms of music, which is outlined quite well in the Progressive Rock entry.As you may know rock music is struggling to gain any sort of traction at the moment.Many people believe rock music is dying because all musical approaching that rock music can take have been exhausted.As you may know?, however, this is of course not true.The main problem with new developements in rock music is that many rock oriented listeners don't get to hear new sounds or don't seem to have access to information so they can make 'an informed' decision on whether they like the sound of something or not. My main complaint is that you & Bondegezou in particular seem to want to suppress information getting out to the masses for your own particular reasons, instead of objective reasons.I now there are rules as regards Wikipedia are concerned, but I feel you are showing an element of bias in being over vigorous in, supposedly, following these rules.The deletion of the New Prog / Post Prog page being an obvious example & merging it with the Progressive Rock page but taking alot of information that was on that page off Wikipedia altogether.This is strange as you still seem to recognise that there has been is a vague New Prog / Post Prog movement with the merge.Remember Post-Punk & New Wave movement's were very vague genre related movement's as well.Garage rock being another one - a term never actually used during the mid-60's - a retrospective term used from around 1972.Detroit metro rock seems to be used more often to describe this area of rock.My point is that I'm not particulary interested in what a developement of music is called - just that Wikipedia represents it in some way, which other internet sites do with the obvious misrepresentations of course.Isn't it easier for you to insert a side note if information is disputed rather than eliminating important reference material altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

until you have consensus here, Your original research additions to the article will be removed. Ridernyc (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Post prog? I've heard of post-rock, which is often grouped into progressive rock, but progressive music will always be progressive music... It's half as much a genre as it is a structure of songwriting, and so almost all genres are capable of being progressive... But that doesn't create new genres. The one's you have listed, such as post-punk and new wave, are great examples: They were not recognized as genres of music until at least 5 or 10 years after they came into being.

So, unfortunately that may be the case here as well. We don't make the news here, we just summarize verifiable information. Until multiple reliable sources claim the existence of such a genre, it's just the opinion of the occasional listener.

However, in regards to the bands being covered: Yes, many deserve articles that do not have one, and the obscurity of progressive rock means they are quickly brought up for deletion. All the reliable sources (Such as DPRP) are discredited as being a blog or some equally ridiculous and/or ignorant excuse, which is something that can only be changed by having more editors work on the subject. Take a look at WP:PROGROCK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Reflections of Darkness[[3]] site also classified as a blog site, they call themselves a webzine - just looked through their crew http://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/site-info-mainmenu-111/crew-mainmenu-125.html - that's quite alot of people / not a small time organisation.They've been mentioned on Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashbury_Heights#Kari.27s_d.C3.A9but_.282009.29 & here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krank_(song)#Reception. If it's a veritable source could I / someone else add the citation needed for Anathema to be included in the New Prog / Post-Prog paragraph http://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/artists-a-e-cdreviews-131/11404-cd-review-anathema-weather-systems.html--talk •Scratchy7929 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Eli. I think the page should contain a visual map showing the genres over time, such as http://www.e-prog.net/images/web/progmap.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.248.2 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

United States

One would think from reading this article that the US had no interest in progressive rock other than Frank Zappa, Todd Rundgren and Kansas. The exclusion of the west coast bands like The Grateful Dead, and psychedelic-tinged acts like Santana, Mountain, Vanilla Fudge, and many others is distorting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.150.232 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Find reliable sources and add to help article Edkollin (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about how many bands we want to list as examples.

Hey, my name is Mark. And I was wondering about something. If you probably did notice, most of the edits here are users putting in bands as examples, or sometimes even self promoting. Should we have a rule for how many bands we should list as examples. Not the make the page so messy, I suggest we could either semi-protect the page, or something. Just bringing this up as an observation.

McLennonSon (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not a regular contributor to this article but am to other music genre articles. This is a universal problem in genre articles. Everybody seems to want to see their "favorite" act or enter what they see an "obvious" band that is not listed. After awhile these articles become unreadable with little difference from the list articles which is created for that purpose
• I would just delete the non reliably and non sourced acts for starters. What I try to do in the articles I am more involved in is keep it down to 3-5 of the most notable/important/popular acts for each sub-genre etc. It is a sometimes daily battle because each situation is different and deciding between acts deemed notable/important/popular by reliable sources is not an easy call. Edkollin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well... I HAD to include Gong and Caravan in the list example. How could anyone leave them out? The whole Canterbury school? And who put Kansas in? Come on, Kansas were never in the prog rock map. They were an American rock band affine to Boston and Journey, none of which had anything to do with prog. I don't really wanna have an edit war here over who should be in the list or not, but really, I am a decently informed contributor, expecially in this genre, and I can vouch for the fact that if ever Kansas and Rush did prog rock epics (which I admit they did, but to a certain extent only), they were never in the wider map, and certainly should not be in a short list of examples. And to be perfectly clear, I wouldn't include Jethros, too, or M. Oldfield. They both did a couple of prog rock albums each, but they both quickly reverted to their roots (folk-rock-blues in the case of Jethro Tull).

Max Ventura, Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.156.191.81 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"proposed merge"

Someone seems to have drive-by tagged Progressive rock and Symphonic rock with a merge tag. That's not how it's supposed to work. If you want to propose to merge two articles, you should actually propose it on the talk page, and explain why, so that consensus can be reached, not just tag with no explanation. For my part I would say that it might not be a good idea to merge the articles since they're both pretty long and a distinction must evidently be made. If the differences in styles can be adequately explained in one article, so be it, but just judging by the level of influence in Symphonic rock at a glance it would seem notability is not the issue here. I don't really know about the subject, so I can't speak to how things could be written into one article and yet keep people from being confused about the distinction in genre. I'm going to remove the merge tag, since no one discussed it in so many months at all, but if someone puts the tag back, at least this is somewhere you could start the discussion. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Roxy Music - a progressive rock group?

In a lot of books, and internet and magazine articles Roxy Music is listed as a progressive rock group. Why is that? Can't think of a group that matches this category worse. They're lightyears from Yes, Genesis and all those, musically.
Or is it things I have overlooked? They got a couple of longer and more experimental tracks on the two first albums, OK. (In Every Dreamhome A Heartache etc.) But not anymore so than any other rock band of their era. (Quite similar sounding David Bowie has never been branded as a prog rock artist). Or was they playing very long and experimental jams at their early 71-73 concert?
Needs feedback from the author of this article and maybe other readers too. Because the "prog rock label" is truely a mystery to me?

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.128.106.111 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Stein, you are partly right. Roxy were not a prog-rock band, rather a glam-rock, or art-rock one, but they did have something more than other glam acts of the time, they experimented more expecuially when Eno was in the house. After that, they kept a style of their own.

Max, Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.156.191.81 (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)