I agree, a lot of Voorn's stuff has a very overwhelming prog flavor to it, which consequently means I dig quite a bit of it. A lot of his newer stuff I'm not all that interested in, although I really am enjoying The Secret lately.
Definitely proggy. Definitely big-room.
Redd
quote:
Originally posted by corjay9
What genre is his Dosem remix? It's classified as techno.. is this techno?
That track was mint
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
future history is what i would call progressive techno though, if there is a progressive trance, know what i mean?
I think that's pushing the tortured boundaries of "progressive" a little too far. If you're going to get purist about things being tenuously labelled tech and deep, almost nothing that gets labelled "progressive house" these days is anything like real progressive house. It just seems to be a catch-all term for 130bpm dance music that has builds and drops.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I think that's pushing the tortured boundaries of "progressive" a little too far. If you're going to get purist about things being tenuously labelled tech and deep, almost nothing that gets labelled "progressive house" these days is anything like real progressive house. It just seems to be a catch-all term for 130bpm dance music that has builds and drops.
I have a pretty specific idea of progressive house, progressive trance, and progressive techno. i don't see why that term can't be extended to techno.
that said, i dont see these labels as exclusive or as 'buckets' in which to drop tracks or artists. there are differences in both degree as well as kind of label. certainly something can be in a grey area between 'real' or 'pure' progressive and 'not' progressive..
certain labels like 'deep' are really meaningless and have more to do with mood, whereas a label like 'tech' (short for techno) implies structural relationship. a label like 'progressive' also implies a structural relationship. typically my conception of 'progressive' is a diluting of a groove-based substrate through the superimposition of a traditional song structure.
obviously the label 'progressive' in 'progressive house' has come to be synonymous with a certain aesthetic-culture-sound , but i'm using it in a very basic way.
so i think 'progressive' is not a kind of music, but rather modifies another kind of music with a fairly defined structural concept.
it's funny though, because 'progressive rock' (named much earlier than any of the progressive electronic genres) often moves away from the traditional song structure of rock.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
so i think 'progressive' is not a kind of music, but rather modifies another kind of music with a fairly defined structural concept.
You've got it exactly the wrong way around.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You've got it exactly the wrong way around.
this seems like a chicken versus egg debate.
'trance', 'house', and 'techno' came before 'progressive X'
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
this seems like a chicken versus egg debate.
'trance', 'house', and 'techno' came before 'progressive X'
Irrelevant. Progressive as a modifier does not mean the same thing every time, which is why the progressive rock example is instructive. I've heard so many ing people posit this "progressive structure" fallacy, but since most of them were trance fans they thought the opposite of you - that progressive meant long incremental development of tracks as opposed to song-like structures.
I would type out a big explanation, but it's really not necessary. Listen to a few real progressive classics and have fun trying to divine a common structure from them:
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Irrelevant. Progressive as a modifier does not mean the same thing every time, which is why the progressive rock example is instructive. I've heard so many ing people posit this "progressive structure" fallacy, but since most of them were trance fans they thought the opposite of you - that progressive meant long incremental development of tracks as opposed to song-like structures.
I would type out a big explanation, but it's really not necessary. Listen to a few real progressive classics and have fun trying to divine a common structure from them:
who said anything about common structure? I said they share a methodology, and that is to dilute a purist, canonical form, very very often through the superimposition of song structure.
then there also seems to be this stuff that is more like trance combined with house that many people call 'progressive house', but when you combine techno with house you call it 'tech house'. that doesn't make sense.
obviously the resultant structure of this method can be very different, and as I said, there are differences in degree as well as kind. Progressive is like the watercolor filter in photoshop. Depending on the degree to which you adjust the settings it gets cheesier, and the more you apply it to different images, the more similar they look.
also i wanted to say that also firmly in the progressive techno camp are aril brikha and vince watson.
enydo
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Holy , this is ing massive.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
who said anything about common structure? I said they share a methodology
You certainly didn't say that, because that's the first use of "methodology" in this thread. You did say "a diluting of a groove-based substrate through the superimposition of a traditional song structure" and I'm pretty sure that requires a "traditional song structure" being common to progressive tracks. And again "modifies another kind of music with a fairly defined structural concept", which requires a fairly defined structure you could identify.
But again, this isn't really relevant because it was never the meaning of the word in the first place. It may be that progressive now refers to a build-and-drop structure, which is what I said earlier, but that's got as much to do with the real thing as modern tech house does with real tech house.
I think it's much more instructive to treat "progressive" as a seperate genre now. The "house" part is hardly ever mentioned anymore. If you do that you can take the many different sounds called "progressive" and start to categorise them: progressive tech (or "progno"), prog-trance, prog-breaks etc.
Kismet7
In EDM, incremental growth in the progressive structure is a mixing construct. Before that, i'm speculating it was a product of influence from 1970s progressive rock, stuff like Led Zeppelin and Avante Garde Prog Rock like Pink Floyd around the same time. The kids who were 10-15 in 1975 and 30-35 in 1995, the progressive structure makes sense to have made is way to clubs. Especially if it was progressive structured music coming from UK. Progressive to me has always been about a song structure with dynamics, peaks and troughs and back again...and about building things in pieces from the beginning, breaking them back down for mixing purpose. Carnatic music might be an example of progressive, with less sine wav type dynamics, 3 long steps up instead and sometimes a leap back down.
ps: Listened to Dark Side of the Moon again last nite...it never gets old....and its damn humbling :eyes:
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You certainly didn't say that, because that's the first use of "methodology" in this thread. You did say "a diluting of a groove-based substrate through the superimposition of a traditional song structure" and I'm pretty sure that requires a "traditional song structure" being common to progressive tracks. And again "modifies another kind of music with a fairly defined structural concept", which requires a fairly defined structure you could identify.
"a diluting" or "superimposition" is not a structure, but a methodology.
