What would music be like if PROG never happened?

Without prog, Radiohead would have continued to build on the musical approach of "The Bends", which was hardly proggy at all.

maybe it's unfair or misleading to group Hammill and VdGG as 'progressive' anyway -- they were on the same label and tour bus as prog bands, but they were the band that rocked out on the triple bill 'prog' evenings and bought them to evenings climax -- they were also a bit more 'leave nothing to the imagination'/ full on/ loud/ scare your relatives -- if they were heavy, they were cathartic in that aggressive rock way that we saw with the pistols and the stones rather than bombastic in the pseudo-operatic style of queen

if Lydon hadn't heard Hammil/VdGG (Nadir's Big Chance was even 'stripped down rock') he wouldn't have sounded the same at all -- the vocal histrionics as visceral drama/content and the cynical/ contemptuous appraisal of "establishment" practises seem comparable to Hammill to me -- and this 'punk' Rotten admitted to 'influences' -- so i think Hammill/VdGG might be better called 'alternative' -- 'singer/songwriter', 'jazz-rock', 'sci-fi', 'fantasy/horror' w/out falling into all of the traps that are the hallmarks of metal bands, glam bands, peaceful hippy bands and andrew-lloyd webber sounding bands, as well as so many of the prog or art-rock bands that were so easy listening -- they were punk-art rock

o.k. Hammil's dramatic over-blow vocals are initially off-putting, but certainly no less fun and artful than Johhny Rotten qua Richard III

In the case of Pink Floyd, the answer that I would think 9 out of 10 would answer "to a very high degree", high enough to indeed classify them functionally as a prog band. Pink Floyd is on all the major prog reference sites (except those to lazy to bother to list them, because they want to be devoted to more obscure stuff), they are viewed as a major influence not only on Krautrock (again perceived by many as falling under a general rubric of 'prog rock') but also other, lesser-known prog rock bands from the 70s, particularly out of France (e.g., Pollen). More importantly, they arose out of the same cultural period/context of the other British prog bands during that time, and had many of the same surface qualities: the instruments (e.g., Moog, mellotron in the early days), the electronic versus acoustic shifts, the song dynamics shifts, the extended length of the songs and multi-part suites, the studio experimentation, the sci-fi (and in the Syd years) and fantasy imagery, the cover art/music/concept album feel, etc. Most fans (at least the ones in America) who were around during the time considered them as belonging to the prog classification (same with Jethro Tull).

Van der Graaf Generator to an even greater extent then Pink Floyd would get a "to a high degree" answer, and if you posted on a prog rock forum, "Wait...what is VdGG doing on here? They're not a prog band!!" I doubt you would be taken seriously. They arose from the Charisma record label (same label as Genesis), Hammill translated the lyrics of Italian prog rock bands in the 70s, and again their music has all the trappings: again, odd-time signatures, the instrumentation, the extended songs and multi-part suites, the huge dynamic shifts (sure, they had very aggressive moments--they also had very soft moments, too--and also other prog rock bands had very aggressive moments as well), and yes the bombastic quality.

* the exceptions to this are Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, and ELP, who for better or for worse, fair or unfair, like it or not, are pretty indisputably 'prog rock' as they are the 'archetype bands' of the genre...

Hammill played so many Richard III/ sicko get under your skin games in his lyrics, like Lydon and Devoto (and Kevin Rowland anyone ?)

i think it was nice that people had the time to allow that much tomfoolery in their art-rock music back then

I prefer to use the term "symphonic rock" for all the music I love from this period. That is, particularly Yes and Genesis.

Anyway, this is why those (usually new) people who ask "What is prog?" on a prog rock forum get readily ignored, because it's a question that has already been played out on those venues a hundred times over, and the answer is, basically, as above.

I disagree with the "most bands" thing.
When Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson released their
best albums, they were completely new sounding.
Not to mention the early RIO and Zeuhl bands, who
were definitely blazing their own trails.

Not that there weren't some bands who took classical
music and rephrased it. ELP, Los Canarios and Fireballet
did this to varying degrees of success. ELP have their
moments, but ultimately suck. I'd agree that they weren't
very progressive, after the first album.

PS. the phrase "ancient classical" does not ring well.
Classical music is 18th century, not ancient, and
there's far more of 20th century composers in prog.
Not to mention jazz.

and the music is more often than not pretty harsh, or at least brash -- it's the attitude, incomparable to Yes, Genesis, ELP and Crimson -- VdGG, a band that didn't make it past 5 years on and off, and a white-knuckled 'tell it like it is' intent -- menacingly convincing whether 16th century papel logic or psychologically haunted houses or lighthouses, or compulsive gardening -- always coming back to a message he seems unconcerned people might find too bleak -- grotesque rather than grand

i can't see Hammill's lyrics as fanciful except to the extent that you can ignore the metaphorical foundations (in the same way that you might have thought Peter Greenaway's films as merely decorative)

i find it hard to connect this band to many others because of Hammell's unique lyrical urgency, and the 'big' 'prog' bands seem frankly amoungst the most superficially related of all music, except if you ignore the overall dramatic effect and restrict yourself to musically technical lists of indicia of marginal artistic import

Which was something rock needed. Rock needed to be more similar to 18th century classical music. Too bad the punk, disco and funk fans didn't get that point.

Depends. You don't hear a lot of 20th century composers in the music of melody-oriented prog acts such as Yes and Genesis. But there is definitely a lot of 20th century "avante garde" in krautrock and even a symphonic rock act like ELP did a lot of Copland and Bartok.

Which was...?

Not by me or most Krautrock fans or, indeed, by most Krautrock musicians of any note, most of whom considered themselves to be working in opposition to the "canonical" prog rock bands of the time.

In "Mojo" a coupla month ago (poss "Ucunt" but I'm pretty sure it was Mojo), Howard Devoto made some comments re prog and Magazine's 2nd album, mentioning that they were all into yes, but they couldn't mention it at the time

Plus I don't think many prog bands were "bombastic in the same way as queen", i mean this is the same queen that only made it b/c led zep didn't tour often enough, right?

I fucking love good progressive music, me.

The names you mention, but especially Can and Neu and (to a lesser extent) Faust, are not Krautrock merely because they are the "correct" names but because they are the German bands which have the least resemblance to Anglo-American rock and Anglo-American prog rock in particular. The thing to remember is about these bands (and Kraftwerk) is that not only did they not regard themselves as "prog rock" but they were actively hostile to the term and dismissive of most of the music produced by "prog" bands. Wallenstein, Grobschnit, Eloy - they are all terrible and they are all pretty much prog rock. Terribleness being a major sign of whether or not band is prog or not, in my experience. Actually very few German bands in the 70s actually deserve to be described as "Krautrock" becuase theere is more to Krautrock than simply being German and playing rock music.

ELP was at their best when they didn't try to copy 20th century "free tonal" music and instead kept to melodic stuff. "Karn Evil" was great.

I think we may be talking about two different things? I am talking more about the reception of the music by the listeners, not what the artists themselves think about their music or other bands. Robert Fripp, for example, doesn't consider King Crimson a prog band, is generally hostile to the term, and also seems generally dismissive of other British prog bands (actually, one doesn't even have to venture outside of Great Britain to see prog bands dismissive of one another). Yet at the end of the day King Crimson is still considered to be a prog rock band nonetheless by almost everyone (except the extremely silly or utmost Fripp-fanboys, IMO), because of the qualities and context of their music.

Now, granted, Krautrock bands, obviously, are more disputable than King Crimson is (Crimson is a special case as an "archetypal" prog rock band; that is, they are one of those bands viewed as practically synonymous with the genre)--these things are largely relative and individualistically determined, and guided over time by the consensus of fans. I recognize that there are those who consider Krautrock entirely separate from the 'prog rock' rubric, even though I personally disagree with that position (I am more liberally-minded in my conception of 'prog', tending more to see the similarities than differences between the bands). Like Pashimina said, it IS kind of like a Wenn diagram. They are not entirely independent (relatively speaking) from each other in a categorization kind of way. Most prog rock forums feel free to discuss Kruatrock bands...why? well, obviously, because on a grand scale (which is what the labeling/categorization is addressing), the qualities of, say, Yes and Can are on the whole are much more similar than comparing either one of them to, say, Britney Spears or The Flying Burrito Brothers or Bruce Springsteen or Run D.M.C. On a more specific scale, of course, there is a recognition that these bands are not entirely overlapping or necessarily closely related either--that is, it would be utterly ridiculous to expect someone to like Yes just because they like Can (or vice-versa), and indeed not everybody does. There are differences in the two bands' stylizations, musical influences, etc. Again, one doesn't even have to make it Krautrock versus British prog rock distinction. I love Yes but dislike the Henry Cow I've heard. I love mid 70s Popol Vuh but was not at all into the first two Kraftwerk albums (or the first Popol Vuh album! :) ).

Wallenstein, Grobschnit, Eloy - they are all terrible and they are all pretty much prog rock. Terribleness being a major sign of whether or not band is prog or not, in my experience.

I don't agree with this--I think it is limited to define or characterize a genre, label, or other similar concept (i.e., a way of categorizing the surface qualities of music in a way that is reasonable) based primarily on personal taste. Note that this is what a lot of zealous prog rock fans do, except they do exactly the opposite: "This music is good, therefore I like it, therefore...it's Prog!" or along similar lines "This music sucks." Why? "Because it's rap." (i.e., Rap as an entire genre is defined/recognized as "bad music" or "not REAL music" or "music I don't like"). [Sorry, Geir! :) ]

Camel.

personally, Pink Floyd always transcended the prog mantle, for me. not just because of where they went but how they came to it- Syd era(pop oriented, sometimes insane, sometimes boring jams)- intro Gilmour- delving into the song structures(MORE structure)- Waters comandeers- we get Dark Side of the Moon. and the rest just falls into place so neatly.
where as bands like Genesis just don't hold up quite as well. ELP, KC, Yes, and the lot have a song here, a song there but never live up to thier ideals. but, that's my opinion and i'm apt to being wrong.

and yes, prog fans are almost worse than Dave Mathews band/Phish fans.
they'll lap it up, not matter what and call it divine.

Wow, what a generalisation. I must have imagined all those arguments on prog internet forums.

hey, i do what i can with what i have...hehe!

like it was stated above, prog fans tend to be as uber-elitist as the next subgenre. it's the willingness to enjoy vast wankery, meandering bilppy bloops, and 10 minute synth solos, and twirling drum kit antics that made me generalize so.

note- i did say ALMOST.

and yes, i'm not excluded.
it's just hard to debate someone with a straight face when they keep using early Genesis, or Yes as a reference point of any kind.
and Peter Gabriel. for the love of gawd, he's worse than Don Henley!

that wouldn't be all bad...
i could learn to live with that.

No industrial dance beats-
nah! somebody would've come up with it...
hmmm, this begets the question-
How would the mid 90's Nu-Metal have come about without Faith No More or Ministry?

and...
Did cocaine inspire all 80's mainstream music/movies?
i say- YES.

Ryuchi Sakamoto to thread!

and they should all bring samurai swords.

Marshal Jefferson's favorite band was (is?) YES. And Larry Heard dug them, too. The connections between YES + Chicago house are there. Somewhere.