batsbrew
...
to me, progressive, simply means arrangements and playing that stand out against 'standard' commercial music.
that covers a LOT of ground.
i laugh at a lot of folk's ideas of what 'progressive' means..
but when it comes to standard rock and jazz, and the more well known groups that have forged new ground during a time of development, it's fairly easy to document.
The reason why I do not separate "music" into styles ... is because a STYLE is not a process, it's a RESULT ... and that result is a definition that is formulated LATER, and does not, NECESSARILY, have anything to do with the music itself.
My point always was, and I have always taken the artists' side, that for the most part you write for what you see, not because you want to make something progressive. And this is the important lesson from Miles Davis, that is very scary for "progressive rock" and too many other places ... what if it is done with rock musicians? ... and IT WAS, in Germany with Krautrock and many other places ... but because it was improvised and later became "standard" it can not be considered "progressive" ... and all in all, the whole definition is a complete and total disgusting description of exactly what music is NOT for a lot of people ... but a couple of imperialistic folks still think that they should control the world and have all the definitions of ALL western music ... to the point that they even deny that Eastern Music is music because those are not the "known" scales for music! --- no kidding -- that discussion was insane.
All in all, the adventurous will be remembered. The idiots that created these academic/commercial terms for nothing will never be heard from again ... and I'm sure that most of us enjoy listening to the ones that are worthy of being remembered ...
You know what's weird'er? The definition does not hold up on all the other "styles" of music ... and that would mean that "progressive rock" is the 1st new music that has been created in 500 years! How ****ing bizarre is that notion?