Music Banter - View Single Post - Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?
View Single Post
Old 10-29-2011, 05:18 PM   #35 (permalink)
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
Default

I like Jethro Tull, but would find them a piss poor example of 'Prog Rock'. There were some medieval under tones, and some strong themeology. Even albums with prolonged song structures. Generally, however, they're really sort of classic rock with a few medieval undertones. They stayed very strictly in 'safe territory' their career.

When I think of something that's effectively prog I think of something like 'Samla Mammas Manna'. Very dense, creative, compositions. Unique aesthetic. Brilliantly virtuoso. Yet, to the point of alienating any mainstream appeal. Prog can be good prog, and mainstream. Yet, I think it should still have some tendencies to introduce to people a sound which redefines the possibilities of rock.

Tull is brilliant, extremely well written rock, but doesn't really do that for me.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote