From: orpheus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Owen Duncan Smith)
Subject: Re: Dead Can Dance
Keywords: Progressive
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 04:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.172210.6708@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>Progressive music once (in the 70's) meant a particular genre of rock.
>It was a label for the times much like 'punk' or 'acid', etc.  That time
>has elapsed.  Now, "progressive" refers to a select number of bands from
>the 70's.  Generally, Genesis, Yes, ELP, and maybe a couple of others.

Nah, that's too limiting.  Those are the bands that *pioneered* the field,
but the genre is not dead.  At least, there are bands these days which seem
to be influenced by the ideas or particular bands of the "70s progressive
genre" who cannot be easily described using other terms.  What ideas are
these?  Things such as experimenting, rock mixed with classical/jazz/
Eastern/avant-garde, grandeur, technical virtuosity with harmonic and
rhythmic complexity, etc. etc.  Okay, ignore for a sec. that these are
sweeping generalizations.  The point is that bands today which exhibit prog.
qualities can also be called progressive.  Bands which explicitly display
heavy influence from these 70s bands certainly should be considered a part of
that musical school of thought -- excuse me, maybe movement is a better word.
I think my primary problem with your definition is that it isolates modern
"progressive" bands from a movement that is in the past.  Progressive is
now too.  Different in form slightly, but it's still here.

>Many people become enraged that their favorite modern bands are not
>discussed on this group, especially when that group is extremely cutting
>edge and, in the strict sense of the word, progressive.  Hey!  Why isn't
>[group here] discussed on this group?  They're far more progressive than
>those old dinosaur bands you keep hanging on to!

I think there's a fairly good balance on this group.  Yes, ELP, Genesis,
Marillion, etc. get lots of talk because they're the most popular bands.  Not
that newer bands, etc. are a harder taste to acquire, but that the popular
trend has shifted radically since the 70s, when this stuff was in many places
"in."

But I disagree completely with those that say we should only discuss the more
"esoteric," "modern," or whatever bands, instead of ELP, Yes, Marillion,
Genesis, etc.  C'mon, they're classics!  And I'm still relatively new at
this progressive stuff.

>They've missed the point.  There really is a distinction between the
>dictionary definition of the word and the word as it applies to a
>specific catalogue of bands.
>
>I imagine in 10 years people will be arguing over what "alternative"
>means.  In the end, it dosen't matter.  It's just a label.

Never trust Webster.  Society always knows more.  The cataloguing needs to
be reevaluated though.

I agree that this is purely arguments about name-calling, but hey!  Semantics
can be *fun*! :)  and there's a reason humans are always taking pains to
categorize and rationalize the hazy.  Heck, we're only human!

>--------------
>Gary Schroeder		
>schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
>Brookhaven National Laboratory     "Home of the Big BNL Burger."	

	-- orpheus

Newsgroups: alt.music.progressive