quote:

Originally posted by distant We've already established that Leftfield's music wasn't called progressive because of its structure, so obviously it must be because they threw in african, electro, dub, techno and whatever other influences into their music. So how could it be that progressive TRANCE, a genre very closely associated with progressive house, suddenly takes it name from its changes in structure? How does that make any sense? As for the acid house sentiment, it was called acid house because it ALWAYS involved a certain instrument called the Roland TB-303. Acid was chosen as a name. Sure you could replace progressive with afro-electro-dub-techno, but that doesn't make sense since not ALL progressive house tracks had ALL of those influences. That was the point of progressive house: it allowed various influences, it had no real boundaries. Hence, progressive. But it was still technically house, so there you go: progressive house.

Pretty much sums it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog To the best of my knowledge, trance evolved from the rave/acid house scene, simultaneously in the UK and Germany (Age Of Love, Jam & Spoon, Oliver Lieb) which was completely separate from what was going on in Detroit at the same time.

German techno, not Detroit techno. Although it has roots in acid house, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog So, you’re basically saying that everything called progressive house can only be called so if it has an afro-electro-dub-techno sound to it?

No, that was my point. If it ALL had afro-electro-dub-techno influences in it, then call it afro-electro-dub-techno house. But since all tracks don't, it's called progressive for lack of a better term to describe it. That's all it is, forward-thinking house music. It's still fundamentally house, you can hear it in the groove, but Leftfield, Spooky and all these other guys just added something new to it.

quote:

Originally posted by distant No, that was my point. If it ALL had afro-electro-dub-techno influences in it, then call it afro-electro-dub-techno house. But since all tracks don't,

Well then, in your version of progressive, what's the comment element that links all the tracks together and defines them as the same genre?

Don't say "cutting-edge" or "new" again, because I don't think that's a valid way to describe a genre.

If, as you say, progressive is a term to describe "cutting-edge" tracks, that would mean that Leftfield's work, or anything made past the start of this year, is no longer "progressive" because people have since copied that sound, whatever it may be, and it is therefore no longer unique, and therefore no longer "cutting edge", even if it was in the past.

Imagine for a second that I get hold of a "progressive" track from the 90's (using your definition here, not mine), which I've never heard. How will I know it's progressive, if I've heard hundreds of others like it, because they've since copied it?

Again, your definition makes no sense...it's entirely subjective, depending on a person's previous exposure to music.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Last edited by Domesticated on Aug-07-2007 at 06:13

Wow, u guys have different definitions of definitions

this is gonna be a real can of worms to sort out...

I think it's just a term people use in a very blaze fashion, but a lot of people have adopted to refer to sounds like that of shulz today, I think progressive only really got reasonably popular in the more mainstream EDM community (which still isn't very mainstream compared to a lot of the cheese out there) since shulz.

I dont know much about progressive I'm afraid. Though I do like some Schulz sets here and there.

BTW, I'm pretty sure Digweed was one of early pioneers of the term, but dunno if he was one of the first to actually start off with the sound.

Hell, according to my last paragraph alone, it's confusing to talk about progressive in that fashion, because it assumes progressive is a sound.

Last edited by Abhay on Aug-07-2007 at 06:20

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Well then, in your version of progressive, what's the comment element that links all the tracks together and defines them as the same genre?

That's the thing, there was so much going on in the British house scene in the early 90's that it all simply got lumped together as "progressive". Rather have that than ten new genres, no? It was all getting played by the same DJ's anyway.

That's why the term doesn't make sense anymore, because there's no single "progressive house music scene" these days. It was very time/location-specific, and if that means it can't be a "proper" genre then so be it, but that's what it was called, and yes, those were the reasons. It has nothing to do with subtlety or progression within the music itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Abhay Wow, u guys have different definitions of definitions

I see what you did there.

quote:

Originally posted by Abhay I think it's just a term people use in a very blaze fashion, but a lot of people have adopted to refer to sounds like that of shulz today, I think progressive only really got reasonably popular in the more mainstream EDM community (which still isn't very mainstream compared to a lot of the cheese out there) since shulz. I dont know much about progressive I'm afraid. Though I do like some Schulz sets here and there. BTW, I'm pretty sure Digweed was one of early pioneers of the term, but dunno if he was one of the first to actually start off with the sound. Hell, according to my last paragraph alone, it's confusing to talk about progressive in that fashion, because it assumes progressive is a sound.

I know a lot of people call Schulz progressive, but I wouldn't.

Some progressive acts I like:

D-Nox
Luke Chable
Pryda (earlier works, such as Aftermath & The Gift)
Shiloh
Subsky
Nikola Gala
Tom Sawyer
Bart van Wissen
Kasey Taylor
Emjae
Paradise Soul (not ALL their work though)
Carl Craig (some stuff only, such as his Relevee remix)
Martin Landsky
Jim Rivers
Gabriel & Dresden (earlier works)
Way Out West
Jody Wisternoff

None of those producers, with the exception of Carl Craig, were/are particularly cutting edge, yet they are still called progressive by a majority of people. Why?

Their style is linked by their music structure, not a particular sound...

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Now that I think of it, it's a lot like the term "garage", referring simply to what was being played at the Paradise Garage in New York. It doesn't mean anything, it just refers to a time and a place, and doesn't necessarily have ONE common denominator.

This thread is all kinds of ridiculous.

I've spent almost the whole day here at work, on and off, arguing about the definition of one simple word.

Let us never speak of this again.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog None of those producers, with the exception of Carl Craig, were/are particularly cutting edge, yet they are still called progressive by a majority of people. Why?

Because 'progressive' is just one word that ought to define a whole movement in music. And maybe, the majority of people you talk about didn't look out the original definition of the word when they first heard it and interpreted it in their own way (that the term defines music by its structure)?

___________________
"All revolutions are the sheerest fantasies until they happen; then they become historical inevitabilities."

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews Because 'progressive' is just one word that ought to define a whole movement in music. And maybe, the majority of people you talk about didn't look out the original definition of the word when they first heard it and interpreted it in their own way (that the term defines music by its structure)?

That made absolutely no sense.

Not in a "you're wrong" kind of way, but a "I have no idea what you just said" way.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide