Is prog still "prog"?

[Nadz1lla]

Should a Band be slotted into a certain Genre for the length of their career based on the tone of their first album?

This thought occurred to me whilst having a conversation about Prog music with a friend on the internet.
In my opinion, the word Progressive should be tagged to a band or album if it strives to do something different, takes you on a journey which takes a dramatic turn halfway through which changes everything. A progressive band, to me, is one which is constantly trying to do something different, one which changes it's colour and hue regularly enough to be thought of as Progressing their sound.

By very definition, I still find "old" prog, like King Crimson, Pink Floyd and even Jethro Tull more compelling and refreshingly different from the "prog" of today.

Agreed, there remain many bands today that rightly call themselves prog and fly that flag to the best of their ability, always pushing the envelope.

I tried to study one band: Dream Theater. Now for many years they have been considered a progressive rock / metal band. I think back when they started out, certainly the first two albums when this particular style was just taking off, they truly were prog. But what about now? They have long songs, twists and turns and time-changes in most. But they have been writing the same kind of stuff now for the entire lifetime of the band, certainly over the course of at least the last 6 albums their sound and for the most part their songs have all been in the same vein, the same kind of sound. Quite a few Prog bands still evolve enough and challenge their own comfort zones to be truly progressive, whilst still retaining that little something that makes them recognisable. For me, Dream Theater seem to have been resting on their laurels for a few albums now and not challenging themselves in the way a prog band probably should. Don't get me wrong, they have always been on of my all time favourite bands, I am just using them as an example for now.

I think these days a lot of people make the mistake of calling a band "Prog" just because they are made up of a group of Virtuoso musicians who write songs with odd time signatures that last for over 10 minutes. For me personally, a band could be playing something beautifully simple, but completely out of their normal style and maybe with something truly progressive added in for good measure, some kind of twist, and to me that would be "Progressive". They don't need to do a 5 minute keyboard or guitar solo, or keep changing time signatures, indeed for me personally, that is getting a bit old-hat now. Probably to the point where, in my humble and personal opinion, I would class them as Mainstream (meaning they now inhabit a "comfort" zone wherein lie bands with a recognisable, easily accessible sound) or in some cases, Retrogressive.

Thoughts?

[maverickf1jockey]

I think prog is more of a mindset than a discernable genre.

In some cases it can be like Dream Theater, where a good amount of their material is based around pushing physical boundaries in their playing.

In others it can be like King Crimson; pushing the boundaries of what can be achieved with a rock band arrangement as well as incorporating pure experimentalism.

On the other side of things you have bands like The Enid, who use an extended rock band arrangement to create a sound akin to a romantic period orchestra.

You could also get very nerdy like Magma, invent a fictional language and write music that veers heavily in the direction of being totally unlistenable but sometimes comes out with something relatively compelling.

There is more in the way of variation within the genre and perhaps one could think of prog with the distinction one might use between jazz, classical and rock.

[Nadz1lla]

Aye I agree!

Hmmm, I may have chosen the wrong wording for the thread title though. Of course true prog is still prog, it's just some bands resting on their laurels that seem to be defying the genre they inhabit.  :)

[Mr.Coneman]

I always thought the term prog reffered to the songs themselves progressing in different directions, not particularly the mind set of the band, or having to reinvent themselves all the time.

You look at Dream Theatre in chronological order there, and say the first two are prog, but the rest aren't, then say they've been writing the same music for the span of their career. That's a little inconsistent. Disregard all their previous albums, is the latest one, on it's own merits a prog album, by your definition?

(I'm not being an ass or anything  :lol:, I'm not even a DT fan, just thought the statement was a little curious, and always had a different definition of prog)

[Sifu Ben]

Your Dream Theater critique is a little challenging. While their second album "awake" is definitely very prog, it's far from their most prog album. Later albums such as "Scenes From a Memory" (a concept album telling a single story with several viewpoints!) and "Six Degrees of Inner Turbulance" (an 8 movement composition exploring themes of psychological turmoil/mental illness, featuring an overture!) are WAY more prog.  As to them alsways sounding the same, perhaps the most startling thing about DT's last two albums is how very different they've sounded to previous DT material (except for the songs that are part of Portnoy's 12 step recovery cycle, which share musical motifs, and how much more prog do you want?), and the guitar tone on the latest album is really surprisingly different.

[Nadz1lla]

Hehe sorry, I wasn't thinking completely clearly, you are right about 6 Degrees and Scenes From A Memory, maybe just their latest efforts. I dunno, since Train of Thought I got the impression they were very much just recycling the same kinds of songs. As regards the 1st two albums, I meant in terms of when they were released, there wasn't a whole lot of similar stuff, but now you have all the copycats or at least the companies are signing up everyone who sounded like DT, it's kind of nullified any of their individuality, thereby making them more mainstream and not exactly pushing those particular boundaries any more.

Anyway, I was just using that kind of thing as an example, when prog bands stop trying and rest on their laurels, can they be called prog? But yes, individual albums should be judged on their own. When labelling a band for, say, a record store, would you put them in the prog category a la 1st album, or put them in the genre they seem to inhabit in their current state (if, indeed, they had settled for a more mainstream and steady approach to their songwriting)?

It's a curious concept. (To me anyway, but I always tend to overthink things.  :D)