Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Prog & Psychedelic Rock (https://www.musicbanter.com/prog-psychedelic-rock/)
-   -   Dream Theater Vs Pink Floyd (https://www.musicbanter.com/prog-psychedelic-rock/13640-dream-theater-vs-pink-floyd.html)

boo boo 02-02-2006 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill
I think its a tad stupid to get so anal about progressive rock like this..I mean its progressive rock for fecks sake..

How so?

You even admitted that the only prog you heard was PF, TMV and Radiohead...Theres a lot out there to explore, give prog a chance, maybe you wont regret it. ;)

sleepy jack 02-02-2006 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo
How so?

You even admitted that the only prog you heard was PF, TMV and Radiohead...Theres a lot out there to explore, give prog a chance, maybe you wont regret it. ;)

I have, but I still know alot alot about it (between talking to you daily, and the education thread). I didn't mean that to come across as prog hatin'. Its just prog really doesn't seem like the kind of genre that needs "thats not progressive enough to be prog", I just think thats a bunch of bullshit.

boo boo 02-02-2006 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill
I have, but I still know alot alot about it (between talking to you daily, and the education thread). I didn't mean that to come across as prog hatin'. Its just prog really doesn't seem like the kind of genre that needs "thats not progressive enough to be prog", I just think thats a bunch of bullshit.

I agree actualy, elitist prog fans can be just as bad as elitist metal fans.

But i dont consider the elitists to be true fans of prog, to appreciate progressive rock, it requires an open mind to different styles of music, when people make the qualifcations for being prog too strict and compex, it loses its point.

Thats why i had a great time making things clearer for everybody in the prog ed thread.


Well, that was my primary goal anyway.

Don 02-03-2006 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo
Thats not the way it was in the 70s, the concept of being progressive rock was being completely original and sounding like non other band, and very rarely did prog bands sound like other prog bands...King Crimson, Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Jethro Tull, ELP, Van Der Graaf Generator and Gentle Giant were all at opposing ends of the sonic spectrum, but they all shared a common unitity, which was taking rock music to a new level...They all shared similar characteristics but each one had their own unique sound, thats one thing about prog in the 70s that has always intrigued me, that every band was not too similar, not too different...Its one thing that has always made the genre both distintive and diverse.

I think what you are refering to are these bands who admire classic prog so much that instead of taking a new direction they just try to copy and rebuild the old sound, and they were more concerned with authenticity than with innovation or originality...In the 80s bands like Marillion, Arena and IQ reached a great deal of popularity for how they captured the "classic" prog sound, this became the Neo prog movement (probably my least favorite sub-genre to prog)...Next to these bands there was nothing else, prog was dead in the 80s pretty much, but it regained popularity in the 90s, and bands began making more original progressive rock music, such as Primus, Tool, Radiohead and Sigur Ros...Yet for some reason some music purists dont consider them prog because of their lack of similarity with other prog bands, too progressive to be progressive, lol.

This is my problem with Don and other so called "progressive fans"...They say they love progressive rock, but they refuse to acknowledge any of the most progressive modern bands as being progressive rock because they arent doing what has been done before, which makes no sense, thats what progressive rock is all about, doing what hasnt been done before, yet people like Don wont acknowledge TMV or Radiohead as prog dispite their innovations, and yet they embrace Dream Theater as prog dispite havent innovating anything, instead they do what has been done before, and that to me is NOT true progressive rock.

This kind of debate is what devides fans of prog, between the purists who think all prog bands should remain the same, and the more open minded fans who embrace the idea that progressive rock bands should continue being, well, progressive.

I consider myself part of the latter group, i consider myself a true prog fan, because i think progressive bands should continue to try different things, its idiotic that all these so called prog fans want to keep the genre in a time capsule...Progressive rock should always be progressive, or else its just a very big oxymoron.

Put it this way, i love King Crimson and i love Yes, but as long as we still have their music to listen to, we dont really need another King Crimson band or another Yes band.

Trying to "win" an argument with you would be like surviving a 10,000 metre free-fall. But I'll say well said. And no I have no excuses for spelling Cobain wrong, maybe it was a mental retardation for an instant.

Quote:

Oh, its a fact because its your opinion?...How vain of you.
Sorry, I was saying that I consider them not to be prog a fact, which is a pretty pointless statement but I said it 'cause I think you were confused as to what I saying earlier.

sleepy jack 10-08-2007 04:49 PM

Who keeps bumping all these Don threads...

Dr_Rez 10-08-2007 10:06 PM

Is this really a serious question??? Were talking about Pink Floyd here. And to even begin to compare them to dream theater... nooooooooo

ProggyMan 10-08-2007 10:11 PM

Pink Floyd is just an average post-rock band. That's the way I see them anyway.

sleepy jack 10-08-2007 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan (Post 405320)
Pink Floyd is just an average post-rock band. That's the way I see them anyway.

HAHHHAHAHHAA

Dr_Rez 10-08-2007 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 405321)
HAHHHAHAHHAA

I have to second Crows HA

boo boo 10-08-2007 10:23 PM

Uh? Pink Floyd are post rock now?

Did I miss something? Did the entire f*cking meaning of the term post rock just change overnight?

Dr_Rez 10-08-2007 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 405326)
Uh? Pink Floyd are post rock now?

Did I miss something? Did the entire f*cking meaning of the term post rock just change overnight?

Its called some people dont know what there tlaking about. There Psychedelic Rock, and easily the most revelutionary in that category.

boo boo 10-08-2007 10:34 PM

With Syd they were psychedelic, with Roger and David they bordered between psychedelic and prog, and towards arena rock in their later years.

ProggyMan 10-08-2007 11:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_rock
Fits, no? They're Post Rock with some Phsychedelia mixed in.

Wayfarer 10-08-2007 11:44 PM

Quote:

Simply put, it is the use of 'rock instrumentation' for non-rock purposes.
Pink Floyd =/= non-rock.

boo boo 10-08-2007 11:44 PM

Well its true that post rock is usually defined as something that goes beyond what one defines as music through melody, harmony and rhythm and as a genre that uses rock instruments for non rock purposes.

Pink Floyd as experimental as they were, still used chords, standard time signatures, pentatonics, call and response and several other things that are common in traditional rock music, distinguishing them from post rock.

Also thats Wikipedia, a website that anyone can edit, and a site that as of late has been pretty notorious for its articles being edited by corporate representatives and politicians who are trying to push a certain agenda.

ProggyMan 10-09-2007 12:15 AM

But it's a music genre page...

sleepy jack 10-09-2007 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan (Post 405337)
But it's a music genre page...

Way to reply to the important part of his post. You missed the point of what he said, wikipedia is a faulty site and not a legitimate source.

boo boo 10-09-2007 12:22 AM

I still like Wikipedia, and I think its easy to tell when the editor is full of crap or not, sincere articles give you a lot of links and sources.

But yeah, for all we know, ProggyMan could have written that whole freaking article himself. :laughing:

ProggyMan 10-09-2007 12:29 AM

"I edit wikipedia..."

Lol.

jackhammer 10-09-2007 08:57 AM

Pink Floyd by a country mile. Dream Theatre bore the arse of me. All musicianship, no passion.

ProggyMan 10-09-2007 09:09 AM

They're passionate about their musicianship.

jackhammer 10-09-2007 09:39 AM

They may be passionate about their music, but they are too busy fret wanking to notice a world is spinning out there.

joyboyo53 10-09-2007 10:21 AM

PF across the board, not much else to say that hasn't been said..

almauro 10-09-2007 01:29 PM

Nobody milks out musical ideas better than Dream "On and On and On and On, it Goes" Theater. I consider the best Pink Floyd "Space Rock", but I'll take them anyway.

PerFeCTioNThrUSileNCe 10-09-2007 04:40 PM

Although John Petrucci is quite the shredder, Dream Theater gets old quick. Pink Floyd is far more versatile and even though they don't have a so called "fret wanker" like Petrucci, they'd take the cake over Dream Theater in my book any day.


I should mention that I'm a guitar player (my influences include "fret wankers" the likes of Paul Gilbert and such) and I listen to more metal than anything else, and I still prefer Pink Floyd.

boo boo 10-09-2007 04:45 PM

Shredding dosen't make you a better guitarist anyway.

Gilmour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petrucci.

Inuzuka Skysword 10-09-2007 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 405547)
Shredding dosen't make you a better guitarist anyway.

Gilmour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petrucci.

Petrucci doesn't just shred. I don't think you can listen to his solo album and say something like that.

boo boo 10-09-2007 05:05 PM

I haven't listened to his solo album, no. I haven't been boiled alive either, but I know it wouldn't be a pleasant experience.

sleepy jack 10-09-2007 05:10 PM

Lol his one solo album vs. 9 dream theater albums.

Inuzuka Skysword 10-09-2007 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 405552)
I haven't listened to his solo album, no. I haven't been boiled alive either, but I know it wouldn't be a pleasant experience.

If you like the guitar and would like to see Petrucci play a bit more soulfully, but still technical than check out his solo album. I will upload it if you want it.

boo boo 10-09-2007 05:20 PM

I have too many files already, but I'll cruise through youtube and some music sites and see if I can find any songs from his solo album there, then I will give you my honest opinion.

PerFeCTioNThrUSileNCe 10-09-2007 05:51 PM

I'll admit, I enjoyed this more than I enjoy Dream Theater.

YouTube - John Petrucci - Damage Control - G3 2005

EDIT: Is that Portnoy I see on drums?

Seltzer 10-09-2007 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 405567)
I have too many files already, but I'll cruise through youtube and some music sites and see if I can find any songs from his solo album there, then I will give you my honest opinion.

Glasgow Kiss is quite a cool song.

PerFeCTioNThrUSileNCe 10-09-2007 06:12 PM

And while we're on the subject.....


YouTube - Dream Theater - Time [ Pink Floyd Cover ]

Urban Hat€monger ? 10-09-2007 06:24 PM

All you DT fans can stick your 'shredding' up your arse.



Now thats more like it.

ProggyMan 10-09-2007 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackhammer (Post 405410)
They may be passionate about their music, but they are too busy fret wanking to notice a world is spinning out there.

Yep, and their lyrics really show that. Point is they have passion, and emotion.

boo boo 10-09-2007 07:59 PM

*sigh* How many times do I have to cover this whole emotion in music thing?

ProggyMan 10-09-2007 08:05 PM

Because some people refuse to accept that other people don't think that emotion can show through in guitar playing.

jackhammer 10-10-2007 02:02 AM

Yeah, but I just love the term FRET WANKING. Succinct, no? FTW I quite like some PAUL GILBERT stuff. I have a RACER X album-SECOND HEAT and there is some great 80's metal on there. I have heard DREAM THEATRE plenty of times, but that sort of thing bores me after a while. That is why PINK FLOYD were so awesome. They were astounding musicians but they did'nt need to over elaborate, ECHOES has more themes, ideas and musicianship than some band's muster in their lifetime.

Areknore 10-19-2007 06:10 AM

Pink Floyd for me.

Dream Theater is quite honestly insanely talented. I'd go to the extent of saying that they are one of the most talented bands out there. But mere talent does not make a band if you ask me, the way a person relates to the songs plays quite a major part.

And there's some things Pink Floyd songs can do that Dream Theater songs cannot for me. So it's basically my opinion that Pink Floyd is hands down better than Dream Theater.

Oh, I'm 14.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.