Well, I went to get Moving Pictures, but as usual ended up spending $70 on other stuff.

Yeah, Allmusic have got that one completely wrong. Jump are a rock band who have been around at least 11 years. They are often labelled prog or classic, although they don't like to be pigeon-holed, and I don't think they fit a mold. Their vocalist John Dexter Johns keeps winning the Classic Rock Society's 'Vocalist of the Year' award..

Check out www.jumprock.co.uk

/me downloads the MP3 files from Jump's web site...

1/3 of the way through "Everybody Stop", /me thinks he's going to be buying some Jump albums in the near future.

Nice. . . This is good stuff. Ok, so which album do you recommend?

I'd start with the live album - "The Freedom Train", as Jump are fantastic live, and this album captured a momentous gig very well. It was recorded in late '98 at the original Bass player's last gig - the gig was a two and a half hour long showcase of their music to date. The album condenses that to 74 minutes, but still includes songs from all of their albums. (IIRC, the second track "The Lightbox" appears on a very early demo tape that I have stored somewhere..)


After that I don't really have a strong opinion - the production has gotten better over the years (The Winds Of Change was overproduced and lacks energy IMO), but all of their albums are good. I haven't heard their latest...yet. Time to buy.

They don't have many copies of TWOC left to sell...so if you suspect that you'd want to end up with all of their work then don't hang around too long with that one.

So someone tell me what this "Progressive Rock" is. I've heard it used to describe bands like Rush, Yes, Dream Theater, etc. but I have no idea what makes a band progressive. The term itself reminds me too much of "alternative" in that it's "alternative to what?" Well, what is "progressive" music progressing away from, and towards?

It so happens I'm a huge fan of Rush, Pink Floyd, and several other bands that have received this label. But I have no idea what it means. I hear it sometimes married to another label, "Art Rock." I've heard people say that it's rock that likes to push the envelope with unconventional keys, timings, and songwriting... But if you ask me, there are LOTS of bands which get artistic with their music (go beyond 4/4 timing, use strange tunings, write 15 minute songs, etc) that don't really get called Progressive. Is there some kind of distinctive sound or theme or pattern that these progressive acts fit into? Is there some canonical list of progressive rock bands out there that I'm not aware of?

I guess I just don't understand this category, and never have. Most recently, I've heard of one of my favorite metal-ish bands, The Gathering, referred to as "Progressive Metal." Like a combination of a Prog Rock and a Metal band. I'm not quite sure what to call them really (I have them as "Hard Rock" in my genres for lack of anything better) but this "progressive" label really confuzzles me.

Basically, to me, it sounds like a hoitey-toitey label for snobby music listeners to say that their music has "progressed" beyond pop music. I would argue that every one of these artistic bands has stayed very much on course with trends in pop music. Though sometimes these "progressive" bands have shaped pop music's direction, it was usually by accident, and I certainly don't think any of them just plain ignored pop music trends and wrote their music in a vaccum.

Anyway, I've never seen an adequate explanation of this term. Someone please help me out so I can rip my hair out over my unsatisfactory genre categorizations on my player.

To me, Progressive Rock has always meant the following things. I don't know if this is accurate:

- Rock music that is noticeably influenced by classical music.

- Rock music that does not attempt to be pop music or to manufacture "hits".

- Rock music that is heavily focused around the instrumental aspect, for example, having extended instrumental sections on the albums.

- Rock music that is clearly written for the purpose of amusing the people who wrote and performed the music, rather than a blatant attempt to appeal to the public.

- Rock music with extensive production and complex arrangements.

- Rock music that is frequently experimental and non-conventional.

- Because of all of the above, it is often appreciated mostly by other musicians. I think the best summary term would be "music for musicians".

I don't know where the word came from, but most bands who get labeled as "progressive" are often known to have their style and sound change progressively as their careers progress instead of just re-making the same albums over and over again, so perhaps that's where it came from.

Bands that I feel deserve this name:

Yes
Rush
Jethro Tull
Dream Theater
Queensryche
Queen
Genesis

I don't think this category really existed much before the '70's. I'm not sure if Led Zeppelin and The Who fall into this category or not. The Beatles, in their time, were probably the most progressive band that was successful and well-known, but they break some of the guidelines on my list and I think they predate the term.

/me goes to look on the web for other definitions to see if they fit mine.

Hmmmm.... Although these guys don't really give an answer, they remind me of some other bands that fit my definition:

http://www.progrock.net/what.is.prog.html

- King Crimson (by the way, I'm going to see Tony Levin tomorrow night at the Boardwalk in Sacramento, woohoo!)

- Allan Holdsworth

- Frank Zappa

I agree with their implication that The Cure, The Smiths, and Nirvana are not progressive rock.

Yeah, the meaning of Progressive is rather indefinite when it comes to music.

The dictionary meaning of progressive could probably be applied to any new music that is worth buying. Or put another way, anything that isn't progressing the musical arts probably isn't worth buying.

But I would say that those bands who are collectively thought of as 'prog' do tend to try more varied musical ideas than those who aren't.

Unfortunately, into this pigeon-hole also drop those bands that think an interesting CD consists purely of near-identical 15 minute long overly-theatrical stories of middle-age heroics, punctuated by heavy church-organ keyboard riffs, and as many key, tempo and time signature changes as they can cram in.

I never liked the term - it's too broad and vague.

Hmm, I like this definition, if a bit narrow:

http://www.e-prog.net/define.htm

It's pretty much what the early-'70's defintion was. It fits bands like Yes and early Rush to a T.

I like this one:

http://home.epix.net/~eichler/reviews/progdefn.htm

Yeah, I like that second definition. It fits my expectations of what a 'prog' band is.

In the context of that, Jump tend to center their songs around modern life, and hence don't totally fit.

<edit> Man, Tony got another post in before I replied. The second definition, is the one in the post 2 above this one.
</edit>

You beat me to adding King Crimson to the list but what about the Dixie Dregs? Music for Musicians if there ever was.

Eric

All of Tony's suggestions are, I think, accurate, but you have to consider where these terms came from. ``Progressive'' seems to come from the early to mid seventies, when the pop music scene was inundated with stuff like ``Afternoon Delight'' and ``Chevy Van''. ``Alternative'' was coined in the late 80's when there was a preponderance of equally bland pop music. Both terms essentially came about as a backlash against what pop music had become, which was largely innocuous radio-friendly pap. Neither term has much meaning on its own, but has come to describe what the popular backlash music sounded like. In the seventies, it tended to be orchestral-influenced stuff. In the eighties, it was less easy to describe, but has as cohesive a sound. In the nineties, it was ``Grunge'', which ended up being just hard rock (there were probably only two or three actual grunge bands popular back then, but many more got that appellation). I expect we'll be seeing another name pop up pretty soon. If we're lucky, it's not going to just be ``New'' rock, in the form of Limp Bizkit, etc.

BTW, CDnow keeps a reasonable description of music genres. Click on the genre links to the left on their page and click a more specific subgenre to get a description. They seem to all be taken from AMG, but here's the one for prog/art rock.

Hmm. I still think the term progressive is kinda pretentious. Especially the "music for musicians" part. Musicians all like different musical elements. In fact I think that kind of categorization trivializes the music of those bands, as if somehow the songs weren't meant to appeal to "regular Joes". To say that Rush, Queensryche, Genesis didn't write music in the hopes that musicians AND non-musicians would enjoy it is rather absurd. They were just writing it and performing it with their own style, which just didn't happen to sound like anything else at the time. And I know the early material of these bands was rather experimental and not very "accessible" but that doesn't mean they were writing with musicians as the target audience.

Genexia's rather cynical definition is maybe getting somewhere, though. Sometimes I think in an effort to "keep it real" some of these progressive acts become formulaic in their approach, focusing on adding quirky structural elements to the music and not the sound of the music itself.

I think your explanation that these terms are very time-specific (Progressive = 70's, Alternative = 90's, etc.) is helping me understand the definition better. But that makes me wonder how newer artists could possibly be called progressive when several other of these evolutionary phases of music have already come to pass.

By the way I think the CDNow genres (which are actually all borrowed from the All Music Guide) are pretty silly in many instances... Breaking things down so finely that a single band usually fits into at least ten genres. Not very helpful in categorizing one's music!

but what about the Dixie Dregs? Music for Musicians if there ever was.

Not sure how to classify the guitar-wizard, instrumental-only stuff like Dregs (and Steve Morse solo work of course), Eric Johnson, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Yngwie Malmsteen, etc.

Do they count as prog rock, or are they in a class by themselves?

I still think the term progressive is kinda pretentious.

I don't think the term itself is pretentious, I think it's often used as a synonym for saying "pretentious". When someone uses the word in a derogatory way, they usually mean it to say that the band is pretentious art-rock.

To say that Rush, Queensryche, Genesis didn't write music in the hopes that musicians AND non-musicians would enjoy it is rather absurd.

You're right, but there is still a tendency for prog rock to be mostly appreciated by other musicians, regardless of the intentions of the composers. But I will re-iterate that those bands were primarily intending to amuse themselves with the music rather than the general public. Rush in particular re-states this point regularly.

I mean, yes, sure, the whole point of music is to perform it to an audience. But the difference is that these bands don't sit there and try to write hits. They write music that makes THEM happy, and put it out there and hope that there will be other people with the same tastes.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes prog rock the OPPOSITE of pretentious. Don't you?

Ahhh, some of my most-played stuff. Thank God for the empeg - I was on the 3rd taped copy of Surfing With The Alien.

I was wondering the very same thing last night. I didn't come to a solid conclusion. Some of Vai's work could easily fit in some of the definitions you've found - his Zappa influence can clearly be heard thoughout his career, and he is by far the most imaginative, and creative of the four, and takes the biggest risks with his music.
Satch could fit as well, but he is more often put in the equally misunderstood Fusion category.
Yngwie? On the one hand, he is neo-classical, complete with church-organs and mythical themes, so fits better than Vai or Satch into the 'typical' 'prog' category, but on the other hand there is little progression over his career IMO.

Did you know that Yngwie was in a bad road accident in the early-/mid-80's and was told by doctors that he'd never hold a cup of coffee again in his left hand? He reckoned that he'd got 95% of his playing ability back. I'd be happy to have the other 5%

I still think the term progressive is kinda pretentious.

Perhaps, but I don't think that you should judge a band based on an appelation that was applied to them. Now, if some band refers to itself as a ``progressive rock'' band, then go ahead. Most bands that feel it necessary to pigeonhole themselves in such a manner usually suck anyway. Most real artists try to avoid defining themselves.

I think your explanation that these terms are very time-specific (Progressive = 70's, Alternative = 90's, etc.) is helping me understand the definition better. But that makes me wonder how newer artists could possibly be called progressive when several other of these evolutionary phases of music have already come to pass.

My point is that these bands were progressive or alternative at the time, by the usual definitions of those words. But there tended to be a commonality of the sounds of the bands, and that sound then became known as ``progressive'' or ``alternative'', and the original meanings of those words were lost. A definition might look something like:

alternative rock(n): the genre of music largely defined by rock bands of the mid 80s to early 90s who were seen as an alternative to the popular music of the time, but quickly became the status quo

alternative (adj): having to do with or sounding like alternative rock

But you're right, and it's an issue that friends of mine have harped on for years; what is it an alternative to? It was an alternative. Now it's just a name.

But to actually bother answering your question, it's because the newer ``progressive'' bands sound like the old progressive bands. Just forget that ``progressive'' has a meaning of its own and think of it as a name. It doesn't follow that a composer would not be considered baroque just because he was born in the 20th century, nor would it make sense to not see Stevie Ray Vaughn as a blues artist just because he came after some other offshoots of that genre.

I feel kindof cheated. Within hours of noticing this post I told a friend the great news about the new Rush album. I sent him the links at the top of this thread and within a day he called me to say he couldn't buy it anywhere (ahem, May 14th it's 'allegedly' available) but had downloaded it from one of the file-sharing networks. He's not a warez'er, just an unstoppable Rush fan.

I've held off posting this since I don't want to 'encourage' others to do the same thing. My friend (absolutely no doubt) will buy this album once it's listed in the UK, I will too but that's a 'given' as far as I'm concerned;
How could this material have 'leaked' given the recent (and rightly so) ass kicking the warez community has had over recent months? If I could pre-order on amazon.co.uk I'd feel so much happier about the next paragraph:

Should I (morally) be cast into the black hole of Cygnus X-1 for temporarily copying my friend's .mp3's until I can buy & rip a retail CD?

Hell no, if you're going to buy the CD, nothing is wrong with grabbing the tracks online. Rush will make their money and then some.

Or, at least, the record company will. Rush will make enough to get by.

As I was driving to San Antonio this week I listened to "YYZ" thinking about your analysis. It was then that I realized the song is in Sonata form. Now, this is probably not intentional as most of the conventions of Sonata form are not followed (repeat of the 1st section, repetition in a key a fith away), but the basic approach of exosition, development, and recapitulation are there. I think more probably that our current musical masters have struck a method that musicians long ago uncovered. . . whatever that means

am I going to buy it........yes
do I have it........yes
Is it on the Empeg......yes

My ex works for capital records (I think she still does, it's been awhile). Promo cds start floating around up to 3-4 months before release (avg is about 1 month before release).
Before mp3's you had to know someone to get your hands on one of these promos. Now it takes one person to get there hands on one and release it.

Interesting note about the Sonata form, but doesn't that cover pretty much all popular music these days?

most music tends to follow this form:
ABABCB

where 'A' is the verse, 'B' is the chorus and 'C' is a bridge/ solo section.

Sonata form is generally ABCAB which is a little differen (and the form of YYZ). Still a lot of classical music implemented Sonata form as ABABCAB which is closer to the majority of pop music today, although the second AB set is generally a repeat of the first AB (although I guess normally lyrics are the only differenc in pop music). I suppose then the only difference is that most pop music does not return to an 'A' section after a developmental section (although there is a lot of pop music that does in fact do this).

In the end, I suppose I spoke to quickly because I realizse now (after writing the above) that most pop music is at least as identifable with Sonata form as 'YYZ' so I'll have to let this point go. Its too bad they didn't do the 'B' section a fifth above the 'A' section or this really would have been a classic example of Sonata form. As it stands, it just has to be a really great piece of music!

Except that the second half of the verse sections are a repeat of the first half, a fifth above...

So, I plan to be seeing the Power Trio in my area on July 9. The best seats are $78!! I would not so eagerly pay that amount, however this is Rush we are talking about.

Anyone else have any plans? I cant wait...

Hmm, album's not even out yet, but they're selling concert tix already? I think I should look up and see whether any local gigs have been planned yet...

Well, as I don't listen to the radio anymore I just happened to hear about Rush comming to San Antonio on a co-workers radio. I haven't had a chance to check it out, but I'm definately going. Probably not going to pay $78 unless I had another die hard Rush fan to go with (I'm not paying $78 for my wife to go an be miserable!).

No dates in California or Nevada yet...

Must bookmark ticketmaster and check daily...