Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It could be an interesting discussion about the nature of narrative and structure in music, but not so much about the meaning of progressive. I know what progressive house actually means/meant, because I've read a lot of the articles where it was coined and canonised, and with fairness to nefardec I've heard a lot more of the original material.
His definition of progressive house is a lot like PointPi's definition of trance that Redd satirised: nice, but nothing much to do with what the term means. Progressive did mean something specific, now it just refers to a huge tree of music roughly descended from the original scene that's been governed as much by marketing, journalists and sketchy usage as by any essentialist methodology.
I remember reading that thread - up here not so long ago. Having been around when progressive was coming about (I think I had a Hooj record or two featuring 'progressive' house), I remember a friend of mine defining the word, roughly using the etymological root you indicated in that thread.
If memory serves, it moved from being a descriptor regarding an evolving architecture of a song to a catch-all, akin to positioning alternative in front of the word rock to describe any song that didn't 'fit' the typical rock-station format; and in-so-being, progressive mutated as a bit of an aberrant stylistic colloquialism which implied an over-all 'evolution' to music which could be argued was becoming somewhat simpler. (e.g. prog v. unicorn wars)
It almost has me interested in defining a stylistic modifier for which actual keyboard fingering would be impossible to pull off in a single take and calling it Polydactyl. I wonder how other artists, labels, and DJ's would adopt stylistic elements from the song and begin referring to their work as Polydactyl (House, Trance, et al). Finally, I speculate the evolution of it would wind up as some horrendous combination otherwise defined as hard, uplifting, euphoric electro-gabber, completely driven by arpeggiators, played out globally at peak-time in main-stream clubs and also used in isolated locations as a sound-track for water-boarding.
Of course the term is probably too esoteric to be taken up, at all, but the point remains that language about EDM seems to be quite shy when it comes to hard definitions which supply easy referential ideas.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
If memory serves, it moved from being a descriptor regarding an evolving architecture of a song to a catch-all, akin to positioning alternative in front of the word rock to describe any song that didn't 'fit' the typical rock-station format; and in-so-being, progressive mutated as a bit of an aberrant stylistic colloquialism which implied an over-all 'evolution' to music which could be argued was becoming somewhat simpler. (e.g. prog v. unicorn wars)
in either definition you posit here, i think the term progressive applies to lots of joris voorn's work relative to purist 'techno'.
the ironic thing is i think in trying to be more sophisticated, progressive loses its brilliance, essential flavor, and conceptual strength.
SYSTEM-J
That's the most famous article. I have others from different places that expand on the concept.
The key idea is there, though: a British evolution of house music that reacted to the stagnant hegemony of Italian piano house, American garage and breakbeat hardcore by introducing new sounds to the house template, chiefly dub, trance and rock, finding a middle ground between the hardness of hardcore and the groove of house. The "progressive" means that desire to move past that stagnation, a meaning which is located in a historical moment and rapidly ceased to be relevant. This was originally a genre defined by a philosophy, "House as an attitude, a state of mind, rather than a sound" as one journalist put it.
As the 90s wore on the philosophy of bringing in new influences to remain fresh got lost (I'd say its last flourish was progressive breaks, "House puts on the breaks" to quote Mixmag) and you're left with this hardish, groovyish aesthetic, a 130bpm middle ground. By 2002 progressive was codified as a certain set of sonic characteristics, and in that it lost what actually make it progressive in the first place. Funny enough this was the entry point of a lot of trance-fans growing into more "sophisticated" music, so this codified 2002 prog became the ground zero for most modern definitions.
Because the original progressive house was all about bringing in new sounds it resists easy outer-form codification. Some tracks were 115bpm, some were 135bpm, some had vocals and song-structures, some were stripped down and percussion-heavy. Some were very dubby and rhythmic, some were the opposite. There was also, I think, a sense of humour and of fun, especially in some of the track titles, inlay notes etc. that quickly got lost.
Modern prog house is dumping ground for what Beatport can't categorise.
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
the article claims that it's a fusion of styles. i still believe the key 'ingredient' is the superimposition of the song structure. i think maybe this is just a result of it being essentially british, given britain's long history of lyrical and narrative tradition.
I think you're still hammering away at some anthropological theory of music, and you're often hammering just as hard at the evidence to make it fit.
nefardec
so i think maybe what i want to say after reading that article and thinking about this, progressive house, which is the origin of 'progressive' in dance music, began as a kind of evolutionary, sophisticated decidedly british version of house that blended many different kinds of music.
somewhere along the line, people started to really like those progressive house tracks that relied more on plot/narrative/song structure. as the music became codified, copied, and stratified into a genre and scene, 'progressive house' could come to be seen more as house music with a generic narrative compositional structure and a generic sonic universe informed by other music of the time.
over time this generic sonic universe changed in part because it became informed by other popular styles of music changed around it, for example, tribal house, electroclash, and minimal techno (today), but the preference for the song structure remained as a profitable and dependable club track apparatus that made it easy for deejays and dancers to mix and enjoy.
wotyzoid
I definitely like his older sound better up until From A Deep Place with Many Reasons definitely being my favorite.
Lews
Are you just changing your answer around to try to fit Jack's definition while trying to make it seem like that's what you meant the entire time?
SYSTEM-J
Ishkur says that around 2001 progressive house and progressive trance "ceased to exist.... they evolved/merged/were replaced by the all-encompassing 'prog'." This nomenclature change indicates the change from a creative philosophy in house music to a codified self-contained sound or genre.
I'll agree with nefardec insofar as this build-and-drop dynamic which I'm guessing is what he means by his plot-point narrative structure: music of recognisable developments, dramas, climaxes, is a recognisable feature of modern progressive.
My main point is that this isn't really what progressive house means at all, just as modern "deep house" doesn't relate to the original sound and idea. As I said a couple of days ago, we should be inventing new terms for these 21st Century sounds, not reheating the terminology of the 80s and 90s to confuse newbies.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
Are you just changing your answer around to try to fit Jack's definition while trying to make it seem like that's what you meant the entire time?
no, i'm trying to make sense of what's been said and reach some kind of understanding.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Ishkur says that around 2001 progressive house and progressive trance "ceased to exist.... they evolved/merged/were replaced by the all-encompassing 'prog'." This nomenclature change indicates the change from a creative philosophy in house music to a codified self-contained sound or genre.
I'll agree with nefardec insofar as this build-and-drop dynamic which I'm guessing is what he means by his plot-point narrative structure: music of recognisable developments, dramas, climaxes, is a recognisable feature of modern progressive.
My main point is that this isn't really what progressive house means at all, just as modern "deep house" doesn't relate to the original sound and idea. As I said a couple of days ago, we should be inventing new terms for these 21st Century sounds, not reheating the terminology of the 80s and 90s to confuse newbies.
i agree with you on all counts here.
part of the problem though is that people want to confuse others, because it helps them sell records, feel cooler, and/or fit into different niches.
Kismet7
Prog in EDM is a structure influenced by 70s prog rock bands. Like any structure, it can be used to make great music or can be used to make terrible music. As a structure it is no less capable than what Nef might call 'purist techno', when we're talking about artistic expression and the potential impact of the music on dancefloors. The only raw advantage that 'purist techno' has over 'progressive x' is that 'purist techno' has a classier history. As a structure they have their strengths and weaknesses. As a means of expression, they have their strengths and weakness, though I would contend that progressive x allows more artistic freedom and impact due to the higher emphasis on dynamics from a structure standpoint. The problem is many 'prog x' producers dont use this potential, or misuse it, this is how we have the amount of terrible prog...a product of poor attempts. Attempts from producers who started making prog x without understanding where it came from. These guys likely heard prog music at a club or anywhere else and said "i can make this type of structure." Without knowing the the purpose, potential, and intention of the structure was, and what could be done with it.
Ultimately i think it comes down to the accessibilty, mixability, and success of the music in clubs that inticed many producers to try their hand at making progressive structured music over 'purist techno' structured music. And because of the amount of prog made, or attempted, there was a watering down of the good stuff by the amount of terrible stuff. Which led to backlash we had. Recently echoed by the minimal techno backlash, and even more recently groove based tech house, that i'm starting to see murmurs and negativity towards amongst both listeners and producers. I think any genre that gets watered down by a mass exodus towards the genre will eventually see backlash, cheapening of the structure, genre, sound etc. 'Purist Techno' did not have to go through that, to the extent genres formulise and proliferate into club culture these days, due to the internet, and the accessibilty it brings. The internet has also allowed the democratization of genres and structures, so there will be less backlash in the future, because there is less concentration on any single genre now.
Speaking of Prog..I sketched a 'Techno' track with some Prog structure...last nite into the morning. Having much fun with it. Though the herds and journalists have bashed it for many years now, I think I will always love progressive structure.
