Prog Debate (electronic, indie, punk, rock, genre) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Prog & Psychedelic Rock
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2008, 06:01 PM   #11 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Well under your definition The Velvet Underground are a prog band.
Well, they certainly were progressive and they certainly were a rock band. But I guess one of the main connotations of prog is that it tends to be pretty technical, with a lot of classical or jazz influences. I suppose that disqualifies Radiohead and VU. But if krautrock bands like Can or Neu! are progressive rock I don't see why Radiohead, VU, or Stereolab wouldn't fall under the same heading.
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 06:06 PM   #12 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

But taking all that into account you would also have to include Roxy Music as well & they're about as far removed from prog as you can get.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 06:14 PM   #13 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
Depends on yer definition.
I don't think it does - I think it depends upon the two factors of A: how the term is conventionally used, and B: whether or not the artists themselves would identify with it.

Prog as I see it is a controversial term, for one, which has generally been used to refer to a specific type of rock band and fanbase rather than clear stylistic elements. It's not the music one makes but rather whether or not they can fall in by association.



ProggyMan, we had a similar discussion before, but about 'rock' itself. It is curious that you can even call Radiohead in the sense of e.g. "In Rainbows" / "Kid A" 'rock' music at all, given that you think 'rock' has stylistic criteria.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
they certainly were progressive
But that's the whole point: "progressive" in a musical context doesn't MEAN anything! Does it mean to suggest that non-prog music doesn't contain sonic progression? It's a bullsh*t term! The punk band Television had an awful lot more sonic progression than most of those redundant bland insipid prog bands who really just aped each other. Why don't we call their music progressive?

Progressive means nothing at all. It's one of the stupidest terms ever coined. Even some great pioneers of "prog" such as Fripp rejected the term and thought it a load of nonsense. Let's not apply such a vague, controversial term so freely, but rather on whether a band fits it by association. It's more of a movement, at the end of the day.

I mean, hell... I used to think TOOL were experimental. I then had a look at indie music, and came across stuff so much more wildly experimental than Tool that it wasn't funny. And yet, there'd be absolutely no context in which it would be described as prog. Radiohead are just that - an experimental band.

Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 01-19-2008 at 06:26 PM.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 06:47 PM   #14 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks View Post
The Mars Volta are hardly "progressive" imo. I'd call them pretentious.
And this makes them not prog because? Most prog is considered pretentious.

Quote:
And I don't think progressive music will become mainstream again in the near future. The only Coheed songs to get any sort of media attention are the ones with pop hooks (A Favor House Atlantic, Running Free, The Suffering, etc.).
Prog will never be as popular as it was in the early 70s. But I do see a lot of new prog bands appealing to people who never liked 70s prog bands.

Quote:
As time goes on it seems that music is getting better but it's being appreciated by fewer and fewer people. My post including the Cynic video being a prime example
Ironically enough, I find that the people who write prog off as being pretentious (aka punk fans) tend to be the most pretentious people on the planet.

Also, I think Radiohead and Roxy Music could both be considered prog, since they have a good deal of the characteristics I listed. I have them listed under Art Rock. Which is the term prog fans use to categorize bands that could be considered prog but don't fall into any of the sub-genres.

VU however I don't consider to be prog. It depends on your definition. But one things for sure. There is a difference between progressive and prog. Just because a band is progressive dosen't make them prog.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.

Last edited by boo boo; 01-19-2008 at 06:56 PM.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 07:15 PM   #15 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post

Also, I think Radiohead and Roxy Music could both be considered prog,
Had you said that to a bunch of prog fans in 1975 you would have been lynched.
Roxy Music were hated pretty venomously by fans & journalists who liked prog.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 07:51 PM   #16 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Had you said that to a bunch of prog fans in 1975 you would have been lynched.
Roxy Music were hated pretty venomously by fans & journalists who liked prog.
So? That dosen't make them not prog.

You don't have to be technical to be prog either. Pink Floyd are by no means technical. But its pretty clear they are accepted as a prog band.

And for the record, Roxy Music were pretty capable musicians.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 07:54 PM   #17 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
riseagainstrocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 3,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
1. And this makes them not prog because? Most prog is considered pretentious.


Ironically enough, I find that the people who write prog off as being pretentious (aka punk fans) tend to be the most pretentious people on the planet.
1. Fair enough. Although, TMV will always be an indie band with drawn out jam sessions to me.

2. I'm a self-admitted elitist, but hardly pretentious.
__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...
riseagainstrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 07:57 PM   #18 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Never said they wern't

All i'm saying is that they were totally at odds of the perception of what prog rock is and that they were reviled or loved for it depending on which camp you were in.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2008, 12:03 AM   #19 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Well under your definition The Velvet Underground are a prog band.
No way in hell is VU experimental, and only their image is arty.
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2008, 12:10 AM   #20 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
Default

I define prog as experimental rock music, or rock music that is fused with other genres. Of course the most famous prog bands are the ones like Genesis, Pink Floyd and Yes from the early to mid 70's movement, but the fact that there are still many good prog bands like TMV, and Porcupine Tree.
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.