Quote:
Originally Posted by BastardofYoung
1)I have been saying the whole time it is my opinion, hence to "to me...." on many things.
|
You said prog was 'laughable' which somehow denoted inferiority. In fact, Prog is a very mature concept. It's basically nothing more than trying to take music in a more intelligent direction. Where, you know, music is about more than the heroin-binge dick contest. Most prog musicians seem much more playfully mature. The fact they don't take themselves as seriously as rockstars makes them far less laughable than those who obsess over image.
Quote:
|
2)"cure insomina" hahaha... no. The Clash will always be socially impactful and relevenat than any prog-rock... when looking 20 years down the line even, prog rock will be forgotten, only maybe cared by by small circles of fans, while The Clash will still be remembered.
|
You have to be ****ting me.
A) Prog is a MASSIVE genre. There are thousand, and thousands of prog bands, and there still is. Mainstream music even is influenced by Prog. ****ing Kayne West samples King Crimson, and Can. Maybe these bands aren't known among youth, but the influence is obvious. There are still prog bands outside the mainstream, and IN the mainstream.
B) Prog's ONLY true pretension is the pursuit of more difficult music, and if your freaking job is to be a musician, is it not pretension to be above average. However, you spin around, and complement 'The Clash'. Which writes melodically inferior songs but slaps on pretensious themes. With a world full of sociologist, psychologists, poets, politicians, and philosophers with PHD education that go unheard of, isn't it a little pretentious for a rock band to cover 'deep topics' simplifying the actual melodic content because it 'isn't as important as the message'. If you ask me, that's more pretentious than anything.
At least, Prog pretension stays in the field of 'musicians playing music' not 'musicians being poets, and deep social commentators'.
C) The Clash is a mindnumbingly dull, outdated, and boring band. I highly doubt 20 years from now they'll be deeply celebrated, because they BARELY are today. The Sex Pistols will, The Ramones will, but the Clash will ****ing remain an obscurity to those who are not self educated rock historians. ****, Even The Misfits will probably connect deeper to future youths than The Clash will, whether you like it or not. Furthermore, with the cheesyness, pretension, and outdatedness of their sound. The Clash are more laughable than 90% of prog will ever be.
Turn of VH1, please. Quit reading 'The Rolling Stone'. The world is much bigger than spelled by 1960+ American/British rock biased tabloids. The accumulative history of music that spans centuries is far to big to think the world centers around the post-Shadows world of Anglo-American rock n' roll. The proggers only sin is acknowledging that, and trying so hard, ultimately failing, to bring Jazz, classical, and misunderstood world music to an already 'Beatles and Stones are Christ and Yawei'-brainwashed music youth. A very noble concept, one of which is not 'laughable' in the least.
Furthermore, GOOD prog involves new techniques. Not liking most mainstream prog bands is not a sin. I tend to like the Zuehl/RIO/Avant Prog world much better than it's cleaner, more stencilled mainstream counterpart. But to piss on the entire concept, fitting all who partake in it under the banner of Yes, and Genesis is ludicrous. If anything, the progressive concept is one of the best things to happen to Rock N' Roll, and music in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar
I like all of these bands, especially KC and Gentle Giant are among my favourite progsters, but I can't help but thinking that Yes and Genesis were the cream of it all, and they were certainly 'not middle of the road'. (And I don't hold the endless stream of rip-offs in the neo-prog movement against them)..
|
Magma >>>> Genesis, and Yes Combined