Unpopular Music Opinions

Terrapin_Station · 08-19-2016, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGuy Grungeman

Basically, to experiement with the rock sound with little to klnow "avant-garde" experimentation.

Which would exclude all RIO and avant prog bands, so you've already got a problem.

Quote:

Most prog bands would transcend the genre by adding complexity and experimentation,

But there are a lot of artists who didn't "add complexity," too, so you'd not be able to account for them.

Quote:

Progressive rock's customs, such as seperating songs to multiple parts, prog "epics,"

A lot of artists commonly accepted as prog didn't do many "epics."

Quote:

and psycholigical topics and concepts are some of the customs prog bands may follow.

There's no way to define it on lyrical content, because the lyrical content of music conventionally accepted as prog is as varied as lyrical content in general.

Quote:

Prog these days is built upon complexity.

You'd not be able to call, for example, t (Thomas Thielen) progressive rock in that case. But he's conventionally accepted as progressive rock.

Quote:

But early in prog's stages, Pink Floyd invented many of these customs, even though their form of transcendence was similar to modern post-rock,

Post-rock is a prog subgenre, heavily influenced by krautrock among other things, which is also a prog subgenre.

Quote:

I suppose that they were prog in the sense that they transcended the genre and pioneered it before it became about complexity.

The idea that prog is necessarily complex is sorely mistaken and tells prog fans that the person in question doesn't actually listen to very many of the thousands of prog artists out there.

On the other hand, Grateful Dead have a bunch of multipart songs, "epics," relatively complex music, etc. So although your criteria overall don't define progressive rock very well, Grateful Dead fit your criteria. You haven't only listened to Workingman's Dead and American Beauty, have you?

JGuy Grungeman · 08-19-2016, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Which would exclude all RIO and avant prog bands, so you've already got a problem.

Not really. One can combine too differne tenres and put them together. If it takes influence from two completely different genres, it can create a new one. This has also happened with blues rock, folk punk, pop rock, jazz-funk, etc.

QUOTE=Terrapin_Station;1732573]But there are a lot of artists who didn't "add complexity," too, so you'd not be able to account for them.[/QUOTE]

Maybe not. I was going by the same woerding other die-hard prog fans have said to me multiple times in the past, not just on MB but way before: prog is about complexity. That was the main argument against Pink Floyd's prog status.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

A lot of artists commonly accepted as prog didn't do many "epics." There's no way to define it on lyrical content, because the lyrical content of music conventionally accepted as prog is as varied as lyrical content in general.

All I said was it's a common theme. A genre constists of many common "themes" that may or may not be combined with influence from other genres. But if there are enough customs, themes, and qualities from prog, it can still be considered prog. It might be a little more questionable, but it can be.

QUOTE=Terrapin_Station;1732573]Post-rock is a prog subgenre, heavily influenced by krautrock among other things, which is also a prog subgenre.[/QUOTE]

Subgenres don't necessarily have the same history as their fathers. Plus, I've never heard it describerd as a prog genre beofre (alrhough I can see it).

QUOTE=Terrapin_Station;1732573]On the other hand, Grateful Dead have a bunch of multipart songs, "epics," relatively complex music, etc. So although your criteria overall don't define progressive rock very well, Grateful Dead fit your criteria. You haven't only listened to Workingman's Dead and American Beauty, have you?[/QUOTE]

That's one theme. Prog wasn't decided on by one theme. Naming one thing they had in common does not denote an entire genre or even half of it. There were a lot of things about prog, but the commonly chosen one is "complexity." Epics generally tend to fall into complexity. There's a diofference between a prog epic and a rock epic. Obviously, the epic would have to be prog rock. You wouldn't call Jimmy's 26minute long violin solos prog, and I wouldn't call a regualr rock practice of simply lengthening a song prog.

Terrapin_Station · 08-19-2016, 06:51 PM

Well, you'd said "little to no 'avant-garde' experimentation."

Re "not really" in reference to RIO/avant-prog artists, are you saying that they do little to no avant-garde experimentation?

Take this, for example:

Or this:

Wouldn't you call that avant garde experimentation?

JGuy Grungeman · 08-19-2016, 07:07 PM

I would call that avant-prog.

Terrapin_Station · 08-19-2016, 07:09 PM

Right. Here was the question:

Wouldn't you call that avant garde experimentation?

Yes / No

JGuy Grungeman · 08-19-2016, 07:29 PM

Again, I would call that a subgenre of prog that DID have experimental/avant-0garde influence. I diodn't say prog and all of its sub-genres. I'm talking rogular prog rock in general. But it is true avant-prog is the only prog genre I can think of at the moment with avant-garde influence (besdies zeuhl, which is avant-prog's child). Not the same kind of experimentation as prog. That's what I'm saying. Prog isn't as playful and free as experimental rock. Whereas experimental rock is extremely free and far more unconventional. Extremely unpredictable. Experimental rock isn't about "complexity." It's about total unconventionality while using typic rock instruments. Prog is different. You could say it's more evenly made, crafted like a song would be, Prog still puts itself in verse, carries very notable rock sounds. Even thoug hit still experiments a bit, it's still very much "rock." The avant-garde experimental scene was very different from that, very much so in rock. You wouldn't put Frank Zappa's Freak Out in the same genre as SEBTP by Genesis, would you?

Mondo Bungle · 08-19-2016, 07:32 PM

Experimentation is progressive

Neapolitan · 08-19-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Neapolitan, aren't you in the UK? You don't seem to be grasping that not everyone reached the same levels of popularity on both sides of the pond.

What are you basing your knowledge of who is/was or isn't/wasn't popular in the US on, just out of curiosity?

I am talking about popular culture versus the sub-culture of the 60s that extended somewhat into the early 70s. Just cause I agreed with Chula Vista that Led Zeppelin wasn't mainstream, I don't think anyone should insist that I am saying they are not popular. I did not comment on their popularity, on how big their fan base was as a reason they were underground, etc etc.

I am talking the spectrum of underground/mainstream. And it's all relative to where you stand on that line. I considered Traffic underground while another member here said he didn't like them cause they were too mainstream. OK it's relative how people perceive it. Vanity Fair are not obscure as a band like Apple, they are a mainstream band that have been relatively forgotten. Vanity Fair are obscured by time, not obscure at the time. Led Zeppelin might be the biggest band for Rock fans, but at the time they weren't exactly a cookie-cutter Top 40 radio band.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Yeah, that's a very recent phenomenon--maybe in the last 10 years or so. I still haven't figured out just what the source of the backlash is there.

Well, I found out the hard way. I said something in plug.dj in passing that song Vive Le Rock n Roll referenced Jim Morrison and I got the backlash for mentioning him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Both of them were always pretty "culty" in the US, by the way.

... did not know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Again, in the US from the late 60s through the early 80s, only total squares/dweebs listened to top 40 radio. Top 40 radio wasn't very popular. FM album-oriented radio ruled during that era in the US.Led Zeppelin was massive during the time they were active, which was from 1969 to 1980. It wasn't a later phenomenon. They were popular after that, too, of course, but you keep stating things that seem like you don't believe they were popular during the 70s.That's true. But Led Zeppelin wasn't at all ignored by mainstream media. It would probably help if we clarify just what years we're talking about.

My view point is a little different. I always thought that there was always something on the charts as far back as they go. I mean not everything was cool, but it definitely wasn't all junk on the radio or pop charts, what have you. I can't account for every song, but the 60s absolutely ruled with British Invasion to Stax. I really don't listen to music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

In my opinion, anyone who says this is telling me that they don't actually understand what makes progressive rock progressive rock. (Well, and/or they're not actually that familiar with the Dead's music.) They'd not be able to give a characterization of progressive rock that would cover all of the artists conventionally considered progressive rock, but not easily apply to artists not conventionally considered progressive rock.

So speaking of that, just how would you characterize progressive rock? I'm not necessarily asking for what's normally thought of as a definition, but as least a listing of "family resemblance" characteristics. Let's see just how well you understand what makes the genre unique.

I was always happy with the term Acid Rock which from my understanding was originally way how Grateful Dead was described. I never thought that they were Progressive Rock since that scene happened later and across the pond too. I don't don't use "Psychedelic Rock" for them either. That term was first used to described the music of the Moving Sidewalks and has different characteristics than the music style of GD.

I pretty much understand what Progressive Rock is. The term "progressive" was more adjective to describe approach to music goal than a genre, with the goal to push music in a new territory.

If would think that Progressive Rock bands mixed Jazz, Classical, Folk, Blues, R&B, Traditional/World Music, to some extent you can find any combination of them in music before and after Prog. The Progressive Rock bands are not too different than previous bands before or after them. So the act of mixing other genre together in my opinion should be the sole hallmark of Prog since it done almost with every style of music. In my opinion it has to come done to time period, since what instruments that were available at the time really effect their sound. Location is important, are the band influencing each other (so there something in common). Melding genres and song structure is still an important factors though.

Terrapin_Station · 08-19-2016, 07:38 PM

JGuy Grungeman, are you saying that there is a genre that you call "avant-garde experimentation" rather than avant-garde experimentation being a feature of some music not known by that name insofar as genres go?

Terrapin_Station · 08-19-2016, 07:39 PM

Neapolitan, you're doing the same thing as JGuy now--you're typing a bunch of stuff without actually answering questions I asked you.

Here's what I asked: What are you basing your knowledge of who is/was or isn't/wasn't popular in the US on, just out of curiosity?

When people start doing that when they're disagreeing with me, I go minimal and focus on one small thing at a time, so that's what we'll do.

08-19-2016, 07:07 PM	#12474 (permalink)
JGuy Grungeman Primo Celebate Sexiness Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 2,662	I would call that avant-prog. __________________ I'm a pretty nice troll if you ask me.

08-19-2016, 07:29 PM	#12476 (permalink)
JGuy Grungeman Primo Celebate Sexiness Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 2,662	Again, I would call that a subgenre of prog that DID have experimental/avant-0garde influence. I diodn't say prog and all of its sub-genres. I'm talking rogular prog rock in general. But it is true avant-prog is the only prog genre I can think of at the moment with avant-garde influence (besdies zeuhl, which is avant-prog's child). Not the same kind of experimentation as prog. That's what I'm saying. Prog isn't as playful and free as experimental rock. Whereas experimental rock is extremely free and far more unconventional. Extremely unpredictable. Experimental rock isn't about "complexity." It's about total unconventionality while using typic rock instruments. Prog is different. You could say it's more evenly made, crafted like a song would be, Prog still puts itself in verse, carries very notable rock sounds. Even thoug hit still experiments a bit, it's still very much "rock." The avant-garde experimental scene was very different from that, very much so in rock. You wouldn't put Frank Zappa's Freak Out in the same genre as SEBTP by Genesis, would you? __________________ I'm a pretty nice troll if you ask me.

08-19-2016, 06:51 PM	#12473 (permalink)
Terrapin_Station Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: NYC Man Posts: 877	Well, you'd said "little to no 'avant-garde' experimentation." Re "not really" in reference to RIO/avant-prog artists, are you saying that they do little to no avant-garde experimentation? Take this, for example: Or this: Wouldn't you call that avant garde experimentation?

08-19-2016, 07:09 PM	#12475 (permalink)
Terrapin_Station Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: NYC Man Posts: 877	Right. Here was the question: Wouldn't you call that avant garde experimentation? Yes / No

08-19-2016, 07:38 PM	#12479 (permalink)
Terrapin_Station Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: NYC Man Posts: 877	JGuy Grungeman, are you saying that there is a genre that you call "avant-garde experimentation" rather than avant-garde experimentation being a feature of some music not known by that name insofar as genres go?

08-19-2016, 07:39 PM	#12480 (permalink)
Terrapin_Station Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: NYC Man Posts: 877	Neapolitan, you're doing the same thing as JGuy now--you're typing a bunch of stuff without actually answering questions I asked you. Here's what I asked: What are you basing your knowledge of who is/was or isn't/wasn't popular in the US on, just out of curiosity? When people start doing that when they're disagreeing with me, I go minimal and focus on one small thing at a time, so that's what we'll do.