Prog definition
Rafa/l Sz/lapczy/nski
in MELODICAL section (not counting vocals).
Rafal Szlapczynski.
Joost
> My definition is: Rock music with at least two LEADING instruments
>in MELODICAL section (not counting vocals).
>
>Rafal Szlapczynski.
Why on earth are people so obsessed with defining music? I think a lot of
people in this newsgroup like music wich doesn't follow any "rules". I
*hate* stereotype music. There's way too much stereotype prog around these
days!
There are only two valid definitions for music:
Music you like
and music you dont like
Joost
NP. cardiacs: songs for ships and irons
CountV
>> My definition is: Rock music with at least two LEADING instruments
>>in MELODICAL section (not counting vocals).
> Why on earth are people so obsessed with defining music? I think a lot of
> people in this newsgroup like music wich doesn't follow any "rules". I
> *hate* stereotype music. There's way too much stereotype prog around these
> days!
>
> There are only two valid definitions for music:
> Music you like
> and music you dont like
The reason you have terminology, is to communicate about music. That's why I
keep speaking up against the broadening of the definition of Prog, because
the more you count under the umbrella of that name, the less the term means.
When I argue that DT are barely Prog at all, it isn't a value judgement,
just a definition question.
If you don't want musical definitions, how are you going to describe music?
I think that even you want to be able to use terms like 'jazzy',
'reggae-inflected', 'metal-style', etc. I fail to see why establishing a
working definition for what you mean when you say Prog (which Rafal's above
really isn't) is so wrong.
CV
--
"If it's true that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then drummers
are from Pluto". - Huey, Strange Fruit roadie
Joost
>The reason you have terminology, is to communicate about music. That's why
I
>keep speaking up against the broadening of the definition of Prog, because
>the more you count under the umbrella of that name, the less the term
means.
>When I argue that DT are barely Prog at all, it isn't a value judgement,
>just a definition question.
>
>If you don't want musical definitions, how are you going to describe music?
>I think that even you want to be able to use terms like 'jazzy',
>'reggae-inflected', 'metal-style', etc. I fail to see why establishing a
>working definition for what you mean when you say Prog (which Rafal's above
>really isn't) is so wrong.
It just seems to me that bands like VDGG, gentle giant and King Crimson
were trying to break away from traditional song concepts and all kinds of
rules popular music should follow. Trying to find a definition for this
seems rather useless
Sadly nowadays prog has become a style in itself......
Joost
Yair Jona
When people asks me what I like ,I say "prog Music" .
they ask ,what's progressive music ?, and I tell them I don't have any
definition.
When you give difinition to something you actually make it a part of a
group but that has nothing to do with the topic above .
Btw ,what IS the definition ?
"Joost" <Jde...@csi.com> wrote:
>> My definition is: Rock music with at least two LEADING instruments
>>in MELODICAL section (not counting vocals).
>>
>>Rafal Szlapczynski.
>Why on earth are people so obsessed with defining music? I think a lot of
>people in this newsgroup like music wich doesn't follow any "rules". I
>*hate* stereotype music. There's way too much stereotype prog around these
>days!
>There are only two valid definitions for music:
>Music you like
>and music you dont like
>Joost
Nicholas Delonas
ideas.com says...
> If you don't want musical definitions, how are you going to describe music?
> I think that even you want to be able to use terms like 'jazzy',
> 'reggae-inflected', 'metal-style', etc. I fail to see why establishing a
> working definition for what you mean when you say Prog (which Rafal's above
> really isn't) is so wrong.
You must be European. Only a European could possibly be so anal about
the preserving the integrity of definitions.
Here's a clue: language evolves over time. Definitions are *not* static.
Once they become static, the language is either dead or dying.
--
Nicholas Delonas
Cult V
http://www.cultv.com
CountV
> In article <7nciif$8ok$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, count@REMOVETHISm-
> ideas.com says...
>> If you don't want musical definitions, how are you going to describe music?
>> I think that even you want to be able to use terms like 'jazzy',
>> 'reggae-inflected', 'metal-style', etc. I fail to see why establishing a
>> working definition for what you mean when you say Prog (which Rafal's above
>> really isn't) is so wrong.
>
> You must be European. Only a European could possibly be so anal about
> the preserving the integrity of definitions.
What? If you say so... And only an American could...never mind.
>
> Here's a clue: language evolves over time. Definitions are *not* static.
> Once they become static, the language is either dead or dying.
Yes, language evolves over time, and I am no prescriptionist, but the
willy-nilly redefinition of one word to mean something that there is no
consensus about is just plain stupid.
When a word changes its definition, this is an organic process, not the
result of someone deciding that they should use it in a totally alien way
(excepting if someone does so, it has some cultural impact and some time is
allowed to pass). I love language, and I fail to see why there would be an
interest in deliberately undermining common terminology for no other purpose
than to please one's own hackneyed view of what the word _should_ be.
CV
--
Support your local monopoly.
design by Coercion; http://www.m-ideas.com/coercion
Nicholas Delonas
ideas.com says...
> Yes, language evolves over time, and I am no prescriptionist, but the
> willy-nilly redefinition of one word to mean something that there is no
> consensus about is just plain stupid.
There is no consensus regarding "progressive rock." You may have found
like-minded people here, but what percentage of the population do they
represent?
> When a word changes its definition, this is an organic process, not the
> result of someone deciding that they should use it in a totally alien way
> (excepting if someone does so, it has some cultural impact and some time is
> allowed to pass).
My guess is that every re-definition started with some smart ass deciding
that they should use it in a totally alien way. I suppose if the smart
ass is charismatic or popular enough, the re-definition will catch on.
> I love language, and I fail to see why there would be an
> interest in deliberately undermining common terminology for no other purpose
> than to please one's own hackneyed view of what the word _should_ be.
I see so many problems with what I presume to be the philosophy behind
this statement, that I can't possibly address them all. I won't even
try.
I suppose the most important is that there *is no* common terminology.
"Progressive rock" is a vague term and will remain such. I imagine that
the hundreds of groups that most of us agree hover around the borders of
what constitutes "progressive rock," will forever be a point of
contention.
Of course, arguing over such things is immeasurably silly. So why do I
enjoy it so much? I am thus a silly man, and proud to be one.
For the record, I use the term prog as an adjective and believe this is
the best and most pragmatic usage.
Nickolay Boytchev Stanev
> In article <7nciif$8ok$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, count@REMOVETHISm-
> ideas.com says...
> > If you don't want musical definitions, how are you going to describe music?
> > I think that even you want to be able to use terms like 'jazzy',
> > 'reggae-inflected', 'metal-style', etc. I fail to see why establishing a
> > working definition for what you mean when you say Prog (which Rafal's above
> > really isn't) is so wrong.
>
> You must be European. Only a European could possibly be so anal about
> the preserving the integrity of definitions.
You must be American. Only an American could possibly generalize about
"Europeans" in a such an anal way.
Not making a point, just a "look at yourself" reminder...
NP: Gentle Giant - Acquiring The Taste
NStanev
--
####################################################
# Nickolay Stanev #
# Stanford University, Computer Science Department #
# E-mail: nst...@cs.Stanford.edu #
# Phone: (650)-321-3492 #
# URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~nbstanev/ #
####################################################
=================================================================
* "Nobody I know will ever take my rock'n'roll away from me." *
= =
* --Black Sabbath *
*****************************************************************
CountV
> "Progressive rock" is a vague term and will remain such.
All the more reason not to widen it to the point where to becomes synonymous
with 'groundbreaking'.
Roger Espel Llima
Nicholas Delonas <del...@cultv.com> wrote:
>There is no consensus regarding "progressive rock." You may have found
>like-minded people here, but what percentage of the population do they
>represent?
this is pure sophistry.
we're trying to look at what r.m.p calls (or should be calling)
progressive rock. so who cares what world's population thinks
"progressive rock" means? the whole point is to see what we mean by it
*on this newsgroup*, so the only people involved are the newsgroup
participants.
>My guess is that every re-definition started with some smart ass deciding
>that they should use it in a totally alien way. I suppose if the smart
>ass is charismatic or popular enough, the re-definition will catch on.
unfortunately, Whatdaumm is neither charismatic nor popular.
which is just as good, since he's trying to redefine "progressive" to
mean "whatever tickles his hears", and that's a mighty useless
definition for a newsgroup's theme, unless the newsgroup is called
alt.music.whatever-whatdaumm-likes.
>> I love language, and I fail to see why there would be an
>> interest in deliberately undermining common terminology for no other purpose
>> than to please one's own hackneyed view of what the word _should_ be.
>
>I see so many problems with what I presume to be the philosophy behind
>this statement, that I can't possibly address them all. I won't even
>try.
>
>I suppose the most important is that there *is no* common terminology.
good thing you tried anyway, your previous paragraph had me intrigued.
if there is no common terminology, can you explain how you are
understanding what I'm writing?
>"Progressive rock" is a vague term and will remain such. I imagine that
>the hundreds of groups that most of us agree hover around the borders of
>what constitutes "progressive rock," will forever be a point of
>contention.
of course "progressive rock" is a vague term, and we'll go on discussing
whether borderline prog bands (DT, Pendragon, whatever) are "prog" or
not.
vague as the word is, however, it is useful enough for a few hundred
people to gather around it in r.m.p and discuss a vaguely defined style
of music that they like. the borders may be dim, but we know around
which areas of the map "progressive rock" is centered. so those who
like music vaguely along these areas come here, and those who don't,
don't, unless they're trolls.
>For the record, I use the term prog as an adjective and believe this is
>the best and most pragmatic usage.
you mean you don't like it when people say "prog" instead of "prog
rock"? can't say it makes much of a difference to me.
NP: Radiohead, _My Iron Lung_
--
Roger Espel Llima, es...@iagora.com
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/espel/index.html
Nicholas Delonas
> we're trying to look at what r.m.p calls (or should be calling)
> progressive rock. so who cares what world's population thinks
> "progressive rock" means? the whole point is to see what we mean by it
> *on this newsgroup*, so the only people involved are the newsgroup
> participants.
Even here, there is no consensus. I am not the only one who uses
"progressive" as an adjective to describe adventurous, creative and
sophisticated music in the rock genre (including metal).
> good thing you tried anyway, your previous paragraph had me intrigued.
> if there is no common terminology, can you explain how you are
> understanding what I'm writing?
Have you read any Wittgenstein? Check out his blue book if you haven't
already.
> of course "progressive rock" is a vague term, and we'll go on discussing
> whether borderline prog bands (DT, Pendragon, whatever) are "prog" or
> not.
That's all I'm saying.
Zero the Hero
> Even here, there is no consensus. I am not the only one who uses
> "progressive" as an adjective to describe adventurous, creative and
> sophisticated music in the rock genre (including metal).
Actually, I use the word 'progressive' in much the same way, but I still
think Dream Theater is only a 2 or 3 on the 'progressiveness' scale (from
1 to 10), much I like some of their stuff :-)
Jason
--
jel...@unf.edu Computing Services, University of North Florida
Listen to DREAMS WIDE AWAKE http://www.unf.edu/~jeller/dreams.html
Friday nights from 6 to 10 PM Hosted by Jason Ellerbee
Airing from the University of North Florida worldwide via the Internet at
http://www.unf.edu/groups/wosp/stream1.htm
Nicholas Delonas
says...
> Actually, I use the word 'progressive' in much the same way, but I still
> think Dream Theater is only a 2 or 3 on the 'progressiveness' scale (from
> 1 to 10), much I like some of their stuff :-)
Well, I guess I tend to include "difficulty to execute" in my mix of what
constitutes progressiveness. I don't include that for soloing.
Otherwise I'd have to bring in players like Van Halen and Malmsteen.
They don't seem to fit.
But if the songs themselves, as written, require great skill to play, I
tend to think of the band as being more progressive. Most rock songs can
be played pretty well by people who've only been studying their
instruments for a couple of years. That's by no means the case with DT.
The music is sophisticated. You'd really have to be on top of your chops
to play in that band.
Roger Espel Llima
Nicholas Delonas <del...@cultv.com> wrote:
>The music is sophisticated. You'd really have to be on top of your chops
>to play in that band.
I don't have any DT albums, but the one time a DT fan got me listening
to one, I had the impression that they were playing extremely fast and
complicated music, and trying very hard to sound like 100% quantized
sequencer tracks. The technical difficulty made it even more obvious
just how *cold* the music was.
other than that, well, I don't want to enter the debate whether DT is
prog or not; I'll just say that, for bands where prog status is
arguable but controversial, people tend to call them prog if they like
them, and not prog is they don't.
I think this alone should serve as a strong hint why the "<blah> is
prog" "is not" "is too" threads 1) will never go away, and 2) are
completely pointless.
np: a cow-orker is playing mp3's on his pc
Nicholas Delonas
> I don't have any DT albums, but the one time a DT fan got me listening
> to one, I had the impression that they were playing extremely fast and
> complicated music, and trying very hard to sound like 100% quantized
> sequencer tracks. The technical difficulty made it even more obvious
> just how *cold* the music was.
There are a lot of bands that I find coldly technical that way. DT is
not one of them -- at least not on the CDs I own.
If you ever give them another chance, I recommend "Awake."
> I think this alone should serve as a strong hint why the "<blah> is
> prog" "is not" "is too" threads 1) will never go away, and 2) are
> completely pointless.
Unless God exists and there's some kind of grand plan which specifically
has a point, everything is pointless. Of course, I
I figure this is as good a way to pass the time as any.
:-)
Nicholas Delonas
del...@cultv.com says...
> Unless God exists and there's some kind of grand plan which specifically
> has a point, everything is pointless. Of course, I
Oops. I was rudely interrupted by a paying client and then sent that
message off before finishing a sentence.
I was going to say something about Nilsson's "The Point" but I've lost
the inspiration.
Oh well.
"Me and my arrow . . . ."
Josh Kortbein
: In article <chnmn7...@rajpur.iagora.es>, es...@iagora.com says...
: > we're trying to look at what r.m.p calls (or should be calling)
: > progressive rock. so who cares what world's population thinks
: > "progressive rock" means? the whole point is to see what we mean by it
: > *on this newsgroup*, so the only people involved are the newsgroup
: > participants.
: Even here, there is no consensus. I am not the only one who uses
: "progressive" as an adjective to describe adventurous, creative and
: sophisticated music in the rock genre (including metal).
: > good thing you tried anyway, your previous paragraph had me intrigued.
: > if there is no common terminology, can you explain how you are
: > understanding what I'm writing?
: Have you read any Wittgenstein? Check out his blue book if you haven't
: already.
And I'll second that recommendation, despite what I think of Nick's
arguing skills. :)
Josh
--
Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than
16 bits.