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.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

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

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

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.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Last edited by SYSTEM-J on Aug-07-2007 at 01:10

*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.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Last edited by SYSTEM-J on Aug-07-2007 at 01:56

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.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Last edited by Domesticated on Aug-07-2007 at 02:24

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

but idk anymore XD

___________________
Sig removed - over max allowd height