So this is an argument that just won’t die. And it won’t die due to a quality I love and hate, simultaneously, in your average prog rock fan: Passionate belief in their position.

Full disclosure: I don’t think of Salem Hill as a progressive band. I think of us as symphonic rock band. But then again, I consider very, very few “modern” bands (“modern” denoting, sadly, bands who sprung up with the “second wave” of prog rock) as progressive. These modern bands—SH included—draw so deeply from the well of the Masters, there is simply no point in trying to argue we’re progressive. For a progressive rock band is breaking new ground. The Masters—Yes, ELP, Tull, Kansas, King Crimson, Genesis, et. al., did that…and they did it 40+ years ago. What we’re doing is using the paints they mixed and (hopefully) producing a nice work of art. This isn’t a knock. There’s precedent. Throughout human artistic history folks have been influenced by ‘x’, ‘y’ and ‘z’, mixed it all together and created something wonderful and, yes, even unique.

I think it’s more accurate to define the terms. Prog is a genre. Progressive means (at least it should) breaking new ground. Innovating. And regressive…well, when you hear or see something that is so like ‘x’, ‘y’ or ‘z’ and their creation is more akin to being ripoff/tribute than wonderful and unique? Well, that’s regressive. And GoodGodAlmighty, there are far too many of these folks ambling about.