Must? Well, I guess that's where I disagree and I wish it wouldn't. But again, that's just me being set in my ways. And yes, I do take the term literally, because it was used initially to describe that kind of music when it first came out in the late 60s and early 70s. I don't know too much about the "newer prog" because admittedly I haven't heard much of it. I did hear stuff that was a blatant copy of the 60s 70s bands, and was a bit irked when I heard it described as "prog".

I'm always open to turning on to new music, no matter what style, though. That's what it's all about. My recent fave (I posted about him here) is Nick Harper. I still urge all to check him out if you want to have your musical senses blown away.
reply to this post


Well I could let this rest but I'm sorry to say I'm not going to. No one expects Jazz to progress. New Jazz is still Jazz. No one expects punk to progress(god forbid). The problem is all in the term that you insist on taking so literal. All it means(to me anyway) is that the music is progressing beyond the standard four/four verse chorus format. The new prog(and please don't insult my intelligence by always using the term newer prog in quotations)does in fact go beyond the standard verse chorus thing and experiment with different time signitures just like the older stuff did. If we use your criterion then only one album, and that would be "in the court of the crimson king" could be considered true prog because Yes and Genesis all modelled their careers as did much prog on that one album. So if Yes and Genesis, etc can model their sound on something that came before it(ITCOTCK) and be rightly considered prog then why can't the newer bands who are influenced by the older bands be prog too?