Progressive and Regressive Rock: Redefining Prog in Postmodern Times

Progressive rock was supposed to be dead since late 1970s, but it looks like it is still alive today, though in much different ways as it was back then. Such diversity of contemporary forms of progressive music has made the definition task of the genre even harder than it originally was, so I tried to figure out which features of prog are perceived as important for the genre by its fans, by posting an empirical survey in strategic locations of the internet. The results (200+ answers) of that survey highlight the presence of a duality in the fandom, which is very similar to the most general one that we can find in music labelled as ‘progressive’ itself. Thus I argue that we can find a distinction between ‘progressive’ and ‘regressive’ music, the latter of which is a result of a revival operation triggered by the supposed death of classic prog in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which is still being emulated today. Both the sub-genres – which I call ‘post-progressive’ and ‘neoprogressive’ respectively – can be read with postmodern lenses: they are both simulacra, but two very different ones. They are both continuations of progressive rock, but one of them is nostalgic and more faithful to the surface of the most successful amongst many forms of progressive rock (symphonic prog), the other one is more faithful to its original philosophy and attitude, and so it is the only one being truly progressive.