To Prog or not to Prog?

It’s my observation that quite a few bands who play straightforward melodic rock or classic metal with a little prog flavouring frequently describe themselves as “prog” to encourage prog fans to give them a listen. In contrast bands with a substantial amount of progressive rock in their musical DNA often play down or deny the prog tag, on the grounds that it limits their potential audience. It may be based on a limited data set, but I can see some logic in both positions.

This entry was posted in asides, Music, Music Opinion and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to To Prog or not to Prog?

  1. Sam Lewis says:

    I’d say there a fair bit of truth in this!

  2. Tim Hall says:

    Can understand why bands take this position, though it’s confusing for fans when the more prog a band is, the less they identify as prog.

  3. Michael Dingler says:

    That was pretty hard even “back then”, when there was actually any meaning to the term “progressive”. A hard term to pin down. Nowadays, when “progressive” often includes quite a bit of “retro”, I personally gave up ascribing any really specific significance to the label.

    Where did you draw the lines between “art rock”, “psychedelic rock” and “progressive rock” back in the days? In what category did Pink Floyd fit? Or Rush? Or Kansas & Styx? Or most Krautrock bands (not a self-applied label for most of them)?

    Metal made this even more difficult. Some classical influence was a popular prog yardstick, but with a waning blues heritage, that is really common in some circle there. I would think twice before calling Yngwie Malmsteen “prog”, despite all the Bach etudes. Or goth bands…

  4. Tim Hall says:

    I always think genres are more useful if you think of them as ingredients rather than pigeonholes. And it’s never wise to be too zealous about policing genre boundaries; leave that to the sorts of people who enjoy arguing on the internet over things that don’t really matter.