TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- What does PROGRESSIVE mean in music
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No, that's bullshit. A common misconception. Progressive in music means "it furthers the sounds of the genre". It's music that claims to be forward-thinking. In dance music, "progressive" was coined to describe the music of Leftfield, which was called progressive house because it broke away from contemporary house sounds. Leftfield implemented strong elements of dub and African music into their music, as well as punk, which was new and exciting at the time. Progressive house was originally house music that used new sounds or sounds from other genres. Progressive trance followed, because it was a new type of trance distinct from the classic German sound. It had more cutting-edge production, more melodic influence and a different sound. It actually took a lot from progressive house, with artists like BT making progressive house that sounded more and more like trance. Now, the use of "progressive" just means that the style claims to be forward-thinking within its genre. Note that the word comes from progressive rock in the 70s, which was all about taking rock music to new levels of production and musical complexity.

I disagree with that.

I think that yes, originally, the term "progressive" was used to describe cutting edge music, especially the darker and breaksier sounds like nefardec was talking about.

However, these days I take it (and I'm not alone) as someone earlier said: a song which builds elements more subtly and has less obvious builds than that of other dance music, with less emphasis on choruses, and more emphasis on building atmosphere and feeling. A perfect example of this is Laurent Garnier's Acid Eiffel or The Man With The Red Face, which both have subtle element additions and no discernible breaks or builds.

On the other hand, Justice vs Simian - Never Be Alone is about as far from progressive as you can get. Obvious breaks, no subtlety.

To a degree, yes, all dance music is progressive, it's just that the genre known as "progressive" is even more so.

The term "progressive" relates to structure, not sound, as the words "house" or "trance" do, hence why basically any genre can have the word "progressive" whacked on the front, and take on it's own identity as a valid genre.

i am really confused here. i always did think of progressive meaning that it objectively referred to the song's composition, as in having more layers slowly being taken away, and is unlikely to have an outstanding chorus, as darkarbiter said. however, this only makes sense in juxtaposition to music that has quick drastic changes in its form such as epic trance.

if we were to go with this objective definition then it would be redundant to call techno etc. progressive, since it's always had that type of build-up in its songs, just like you wouldn't want to label something as 'vocal gospel'

it seems to me like beatport follows the objective approach to the word as most of the songs under progressive house are ones that have melodies that span more than a few bars, have a more euphoric feeling and extra layers... am i wrong?

and as for progressive trance, it has always seemed to me as typically being slower with a swelling bassline, and not having an ear piercing arpeggiated lead... markus schulz tracks come to mind. it seems that the majority accept his stuff as prog trance for describing its composition compared to chorusey trance... someone want to offer me the 'progressive as forward-thinking' definition of prog trance?

can someone who shares the subjective definition of progressive (forward-thinking, adding more to the genre, all that crap) do me a favor and give me some examples of newer trance and house songs (that i can find on beatport) that you would call progressive, and a few that you definitely wouldn't?

quote:

Originally posted by DaRoZa i am really confused here. i always did think of progressive meaning that it objectively referred to the song's composition, as in having more layers slowly being taken away, and is unlikely to have an outstanding chorus, as darkarbiter said. however, this only makes sense in juxtaposition to music that has quick drastic changes in its form such as epic trance. if we were to go with this objective definition then it would be redundant to call techno etc. progressive, since it's always had that type of build-up in its songs, just like you wouldn't want to label something as 'vocal gospel' it seems to me like beatport follows the objective approach to the word as most of the songs under progressive house are ones that have melodies that span more than a few bars, have a more euphoric feeling and extra layers... am i wrong? and as for progressive trance, it has always seemed to me as typically being slower with a swelling bassline, and not having an ear piercing arpeggiated lead... someone want to offer me the 'progressive as forward-thinking' definition of prog trance? can someone who shares the subjective definition of progressive (forward-thinking, adding more to the genre, all that crap) do me a favor and give me some examples of newer trance and house songs (that i can find on beatport) that you would call progressive, and a few that you definitely wouldn't?

I agree with everything you just said.

re: techno always having been progressive

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated To a degree, yes, all dance music is progressive, it's just that the genre known as "progressive" is even more so.

early John Digweed is pure progressive house

"progressive" + [genre] = usually means a more (more than pure [genre]) moody deeeeep bass, complex percussions, loads of reverb and fx, less catchy melody, long transitions, small hardly-noticed changes in percussion and structure throughout the track. progressive, to me personally, is more relevant to feeling a state of trance due to the repeatance and monotony of the progressive sound(which is a good thing)

IMHO examples:

Native Toungue - High (Original Mix) - pure progressive house

Leama - Melodica (Humate Remix) - pure progressive trance (FUCKING LOVE IT!!!!)

quote:

Originally posted by DaRoZa can someone who shares the subjective definition of progressive (forward-thinking, adding more to the genre, all that crap) do me a favor and give me some examples of newer trance and house songs (that i can find on beatport) that you would call progressive, and a few that you definitely wouldn't?

The thing is, that the word 'progressive' became a buzzword and as people used it, they disinterpreted the meaning. What was once a word that was meant to describe a true musical progression in f.e. Leftfield's music, has become a term that is linked to derivative shit, such as Schulz's McProg.

The question is: Should we refer to 'progressive' in connection with it's original meaning or with what it signifies now, after years of inaccurate use? I'm content with the former.

Also, that reminds me; I�m currently reading a book by Malcolm Gladwell called 'Blink' and there are some really interesting thoughts about how does our brain work on an unconscious level and how does that collide with voicing our thoughts or describing things we saw/heard. For example, if I told you to picture Marilyn Monroe's face, you'd probably have it in a second. If I told you to desribe it then, though, you'd have to use words to do it and just from them, almost noone could tell whose face it was.

The same thing happens in music when we try to give it names or describe it; the fundamental resemblance gets lost in a translation. That's why we should at least try to find out what was the word originally supposed to mean, and more importantly, how sounded the music that got tagged like that. Or perhaps, we shouldn't even try to pigeonhole music when the result is nothing but confusion.

Some people here are doing way too much of this "ignoring" thing.

Re: Re: What does PROGRESSICE mean in music

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I love people who write off entire genres in one sweeping sentence.

I do it all the time, so does probably almost anyone else.

Sure there's probably the occasional hardcore rock, or gabber, or house, or country, or whatever song that I might not mind, but as a rule the defining elements of those genres don't appeal to me, so I just leave it at that and don't bother with it.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec So.... basically, you're saying nearly 98% all music is 'progressive music'. Did you come up with this on your own? Did someone tell you this? Where did this notion come from? IF you really want to know I suggest asking people who have been buying records since the mid 90s, record store owners, important deejays. Find out where these labels were first used to describe or market the music. Don't just sit there and speculate and post rationalize..

read what i posted right above ur post.
would hve saved u some time.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog I disagree with that. I think that yes, originally, the term "progressive" was used to describe cutting edge music, especially the darker and breaksier sounds like nefardec was talking about. However, these days I take it (and I'm not alone) as someone earlier said: a song which builds elements more subtly and has less obvious builds than that of other dance music, with less emphasis on choruses, and more emphasis on building atmosphere and feeling. A perfect example of this is Laurent Garnier's Acid Eiffel or The Man With The Red Face, which both have subtle element additions and no discernible breaks or builds.

Who gives a fuck what it's taken as these days? These days "trance" is taken as something with a huge hook introduced in a breakdown, "electro" is anything with beepy sounds and a buzzing bassline and "minimal" is anything that sounds like a cicada symphony.

This "progressive structure" idea is completely irrelevant. If any track that progressively added layers were progressive, then a huge amount of dance music would have to be progressive, which it clearly isn't. Furthermore, the track which "progressive" was introduced into the dance music lexicon to describe (Leftfield's Song of Life) completely disobeys the structure, doing what early Leftfield tracks did and passing through distinct stages with different musical elements for each one.

quote:

The term "progressive" relates to structure, not sound, as the words "house" or "trance" do, hence why basically any genre can have the word "progressive" whacked on the front, and take on it's own identity as a valid genre.

Who says it does? Do genre prefixes like "acid" or "psy" relate to structure? Of course not. Who has even defined "progressive" as meaning "steady introduction of elements with breaks or builds"? There's absolutely no fixed definition of progressive with regards to musical structure. The one you hear most often is stuff relating to "taking you on a journey" or "starts somewhere and ends somewhere else", but these are incredibly vague ideas that can be applied to a huge volume of music.

So instead of trying to fuck around with unhelpful and inaccurate descriptions of structure, I'm sticking with what "progressive" actually meant when it was coined, and what still best describes all progressive music.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No, that's bullshit. A common misconception. Progressive in music means "it furthers the sounds of the genre". It's music that claims to be forward-thinking. In dance music, "progressive" was coined to describe the music of Leftfield, which was called progressive house because it broke away from contemporary house sounds. Leftfield implemented strong elements of dub and African music into their music, as well as punk, which was new and exciting at the time. Progressive house was originally house music that used new sounds or sounds from other genres. Progressive trance followed, because it was a new type of trance distinct from the classic German sound. It had more cutting-edge production, more melodic influence and a different sound. It actually took a lot from progressive house, with artists like BT making progressive house that sounded more and more like trance. Now, the use of "progressive" just means that the style claims to be forward-thinking within its genre. Note that the word comes from progressive rock in the 70s, which was all about taking rock music to new levels of production and musical complexity.

Yay!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J These days..."minimal" is anything that sounds like a cicada symphony.

Re: Re: Re: What does PROGRESSICE mean in music

quote:

Originally posted by Taranis I do it all the time, so does probably almost anyone else. Sure there's probably the occasional hardcore rock, or gabber, or house, or country, or whatever song that I might not mind, but as a rule the defining elements of those genres don't appeal to me, so I just leave it at that and don't bother with it.

The difference being this guy probably has no clue what house music has to offer besides some crap he heard once. It's a HUGE genre with many many different avenues of music to explore. Gabber probably constitutes a much smaller spectrum of EDM.

Progressive - to me....it basically refers to a track that is slower in building up and adds elements, layering slowly over time, until it reaches a peak, and then usually the producer/DJ plays with elements (because there are several) during that peak period, bass, treble, mids, etc...and then the progression to the next track is never a wipe or a 'drop the beat' deal - but a slow, methodical progression that may take place over several minutes.

It's definately not a Paul van Dyk or Tiesto set...

Maybe more of a Sasha, John Digweed, or Deep Dish set. They have been known for their trademark progressive sets and that kind of sound.

Hope this helps.

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 Andre absolut - Digital supsense.

Top tune indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Who gives a fuck what it's taken as these days? These days "trance" is taken as something with a huge hook introduced in a breakdown, "electro" is anything with beepy sounds and a buzzing bassline and "minimal" is anything that sounds like a cicada symphony.

No need to get angry and be rude just because I disagreed with you.

In regards to genres changing, when the rock band Kiss first started making music, they were known as being "heavy metal", but these days the idea is just laughable, next to real heavy mateal bands like Rammstein, Mudvayne or Sevendust.

Genre definitions change over time, especially in dance music. Deal with it.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This "progressive structure" idea is completely irrelevant. If any track that progressively added layers were progressive, then a huge amount of dance music would have to be progressive, which it clearly isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by blacknoizybox early John Digweed is pure progressive house "progressive" + [genre] = usually means a more (more than pure [genre]) moody deeeeep bass, complex percussions, loads of reverb and fx, less catchy melody, long transitions, small hardly-noticed changes in percussion and structure throughout the track. progressive, to me personally, is more relevant to feeling a state of trance due to the repeatance and monotony of the progressive sound(which is a good thing)

John Digweed diagrees with you, and somehow...I'm more inclined to agree with him. He says nothing about "forward thinking" music ahead of it's time, instead he refers to "long transitions" or "small, hardly noticed changes", which, exactly as I said, relate far more to structure than they do to the actual sound of the music.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Who says it does? Do genre prefixes like "acid" or "psy" relate to structure? Of course not. Who has even defined "progressive" as meaning "steady introduction of elements with breaks or builds"? There's absolutely no fixed definition of progressive with regards to musical structure. The one you hear most often is stuff relating to "taking you on a journey" or "starts somewhere and ends somewhere else", but these are incredibly vague ideas that can be applied to a huge volume of music.

I didn't say that ALL prefixes relate to structure, just "progressive", and, as I said twice before:

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated To a degree, yes, all dance music is progressive, it's just that the genre known as "progressive" is even more so.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J So instead of trying to fuck around with unhelpful and inaccurate descriptions of structure, I'm sticking with what "progressive" actually meant when it was coined, and what still best describes all progressive music.

The term "progressive" is perfectly clear and helpful to thousands of people around the world, including myself. If your intellect is so diminutive that you can't comprehend the term, that's just your bad luck.

Ironically, your definition is actually far more muddy and ambiguous. If we were define "progressive music" as "cutting edge music" or a unique, "forward thinking sound", this is completely subjective. What one person might consider unique and futuristic, someone else might find overused and done to death, hence why using "progressive" that way is utterly useless as a genre description.

Have a nice day.

By the way, plenty of EDM heads on here, but has anyone ever heard the term "progressive rock music"?

Progressive rock, again, relates far more to structure than to the actual sound of the music.

Long, droning chords, intricate melodies and slow layering of elements are the most common hallmark of prog rock, elements which are almost completely absent in normal rock music. Songs usually last about 6 or more minutes, which, again, is rare in normal rock music.

Awesome band Tool is a perfect example of this genre.

Applying this back to dance music, and exactly the same is true. Longer, more drawn out sections, more well conceived melodies etc.

I guess you could say that "progressive" is another way of saying "deep". Pop music is superficial...it gets to the point straight away and makes no real effort to establish a mood.

On the other hand, a progressive song is "deeper" in a fashion, and will take time to develop ideas and create a mood, or "put you in a trance" as John Digweed said.

/rant

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog In regards to genres changing, when the rock band Kiss first started making music, they were known as being "heavy metal", but these days the idea is just laughable, next to real heavy mateal bands like Rammstein, Mudvayne or Sevendust.

That isn't an example of the term changing, but rather the conception of "heavy" changing.

quote:

John Digweed diagrees with you, and somehow...I'm more inclined to agree with him. He says nothing about "forward thinking" music ahead of it's time, instead he refers to "long transitions" or "small, hardly noticed changes", which, exactly as I said, relate far more to structure than they do to the actual sound of the music.

I couldn't care less what John Digweed has said. He didn't coin the term. Although I'd love an actual citation of this ambigious, contextless, unvalidated quote you've provided.

quote:

I didn't say that ALL prefixes relate to structure, just "progressive"

So again I ask you- what leads you to indicate that "progressive" is a prefix concerned with structure?

quote:

The term "progressive" is perfectly clear and helpful to thousands of people around the world, including myself. If your intellect is so diminutive that you can't comprehend the term, that's just your bad luck.

Because you're one of many people who misuse the term. We can draw up endless lists of renowned "progressive" tracks that do not fit your definition. People ignore what is obvious to them. Sasha's Xpander is extremely famous prog trance, yet it features clear breakdowns and peaks, and layers are not steadily built up in the track.

I don't see any fucking ground at all to call me stupid. I've not failed to understand anything: I've observed that the term "progressive" as an objective description of structure is flawed.

quote:

Ironically, your definition is actually far more muddy and ambiguous. If we were define "progressive music" as "cutting edge music" or a unique, "forward thinking sound", this is completely subjective. What one person might consider unique and futuristic, someone else might find overused and done to death, hence why using "progressive" that way is utterly useless as a genre description.

No it isn't. When Leftfield introduced dub and African music to house, that was new. When they used punk vocals in a house track, that was new. When trance producers started making tracks that used sounds and structures foreign to trance, that was new. You speak of irony, but the introduction of the breakdown and melodic hook to trance is widely regarded as one of the distinguishing characteristics of progressive trance- the introduction of "choruses" distinguished it from classic trance, which by and large completely fits your "progressive" definition.

The prime reason people have tried to attach an objective, structural definition to "progressive" is because the word as a genre prefix is inherently bound to context. All innovative music can be called progressive, yet the term becomes attached to styles that are new at the time, but grow familiar. Progressive trance is not forward-thinking in 2007: it is thoroughly established. However, it was in 1995. So people without historical knowledge of the genre in question don't realise why something was dubbed "progressive" and they associate it with the sound of the progressive genre in question instead.

The lesson is that genre names are not all-powerful: they rise and fall because of social context. Progressive house did actually remain a temporal genre for a while. Early prog house (Renaissance era stuff) sounds very different to late 90s prog house, because the genre kept pushing forwards. But then "prog" fell out of favour and was ironically regarded as a backwards, out-of-fashion term and so was dropped. Nothing to do with the music, everything to do with how people viewed it.

*sigh* (see my thread above)

(Progressive) trance was never this "new" deal, the prog denotation is just making note that the tune is progressive in nature, and it employs trance (uplifting synth and spacey) elements, that are in regular trance type anthemish tunes. Progressive tunes, yes, are usually longer, they are slow in building up, but are not anthems. This "progressive" name came about to show the difference in tunes that DJs like Digweed were spinning in the 90s to show the genre was different from Kaycee or ATB type tunes (anthems/epic trance)...this was considered mainstream or regular TRANCE - Paul van Dyk's anthem For Angel fell into this category, Tiesto/Corsten Gouryella too, this stuff was considered "Regular" or Epic trance...Sasha GU:013 is what I would throw at you and say: This is PROGRESSIVE TRANCE. Digweed has always been the more housey stuff, Sasha more on the trance side, but both have always been progressive.

Everybody talks about progressive and mentions sasha and digweed. This dark, monotonous and boring (IMO) post-millennium Tenaglia/Digweed/Howells/Lawler tribal sound IMO is a very bad example of progressive house and has nothing (or little to do) to do with the original early-mid 90s prog-house which was overflowing with ideas. Has anyone here actually heard Spooky (Charlie May with another lad), Leftfield, The Drum Club, early Underworld (Dubnobasswithmyheadman, Second toughest in the infants) , early William Orbit and the sound of Guerilla records? And yes that sound being "progressive" had little standard structure, although it had some characteristic elements such as long duration, dubbed-out sounds, ethnic influences,sometimes rock influences (Leftfield, Underworld), lots of ambient pads, a chaos of samples, and in relation to early trance, the characteristic trippy melodic riffs and arpeggios.


Here is a link to a classic prog-house album: ("Aqualung" is a classic prog-house anthem!)

Spooky - Gargantuan.

http://www.astralmusic.com/en/catal...en/Default.aspx

quote:

Originally posted by WardC This "progressive" name came about to show the difference in tunes that DJs like Digweed were spinning in the 90s to show the genre was different from Kaycee or ATB type tunes (anthems/epic trance)...

So nobody called any trance "progressive trance" before epic trance?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Has anyone here actually heard Spooky (Charlie May with another lad), Leftfield, The Drum Club, early Underworld (Dubnobasswithmyheadman, Second toughest in the infants) , early William Orbit and the sound of Guerilla records? And yes that sound being "progressive" had little standard structure, although it had some characteristic elements such as long duration, dubbed-out sounds, ethnic influences,sometimes rock influences (Leftfield, Underworld), lots of ambient pads, a chaos of samples, and in relation to early trance, the characteristic trippy melodic riffs and arpeggios.

I've got albums by Leftfield, Underworld, William Orbit and Spooky from the early 90s (as well as other contemporaries- including Sasha), which is why I completely disagree with this stupid "progressive structure" notion. What connects all these records is exactly what you said- they were overflowing with new ideas. They were putting new sounds into house music.

Most of the people who talk about progressive as a structural thing don't have a clue about the classic prog house records, and only know the genre from the late 90s and early 00s.

Petran - I actually don't know a lot about this era of Progressive House, and I think we could all benefit if you have any more suggestions. It's gorgeous music for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Most of the people who talk about progressive as a structural thing don't have a clue about the classic prog house records, and only know the genre from the late 90s and early 00s.

On the contrary, a majority of the tracks I call progressive are quite "old".

As I stated before, Laurent Garnier's Acid Eiffel is extremely progressive (1993), as is Melt's classic Be Liquid from 1992, which seems to be before you even think progressive developed.

As for Sasha's Xpander having obvious peaks and troughs, thus not conforming to the structural definition of progressive, I have to disagree and say that this track is a perfect example of structure defining progressive.

For a start, the track is long, and "deep" taking time to develop ideas. It has a long term, evolving melody, and no specific choruses sections. Although yes, it has peaks, they are not "massive hands in the air, 64 bar drum roll" peaks, which is part of what defines "epic"...in that way progressive is the complete opposite to epic. It is far more cruisy and well considered, a lot less about catchy hooks and peak-time moments, and more about establishing a mood.

Although I realise that wikipedia is far from the most reliable source of information:

quote:

Originally posted by Wikipedia Unlike the song structures of genres like hard house or Hi-NRG, the peaks and troughs in a progressive dance track tend to be more subtle. Layering different sounds on top of each other and slowly bringing them in and out of the mix is a key idea behind the progressive movement. Today, the term "progressive" typically refers to the structure of a track which occur incrementally, though there are other uses for the term: progressive trance usually refers to a type of trance music that features a less prominent lead melody and focuses more on atmosphere, and in the case of progressive house, the term "progressive" can also refer to the style's open mindedness to bring in new elements to the genre. These elements can be a variety of sounds, such as a guitar loop, computer generated noises, or other elements typical of other genres. Progressive electronic is also a term for a sub-genre in new age music and contains elements of progressive rock, classical music and ambient music and electronic music. It has been used to describe artists such as Vangelis and Jean Michel Jarre.

i always considered xpander and nothing (93 returning mix) progressive

but idk anymore XD

This is going to sound funny I guess, and it's really no pun to anything or related to the quality of either type, but I always considered progressive more upscale club/lounge type music, that you would usually find/hear at a 21+ venue with open bars, and mainstream trance/epic more the stuff you would hear at a festival or a massive/(used to be...rave) - the progressive sounds tend to get everybody in the mode and mess with your mind a bit after you have had a few....and epic/mainstream trance is quite energy-laden with lots of peaks, riffs, and wobbly funky basslines that just make you want to dance and scream the whole time...

both can be called 'trance' just simply based on the synths and atmospheric elements / dreamy swimming sounds that play with your head - well, damnit, you know what trance is hahah

Just trying to further identify what (I think the) differences are in prog vs. epic/"regular" trance

System J is right. You other people are wrong.

Most trance before the late '90s featured slow builds and no choruses, too. Doesn't mean that it was "progressive."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.