Favorite 70s Prog Band: Redux

Comus · 05-01-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

To be fair, that is a very broad criticism that's often directed towards prog rock in general.

Granted Yes are one of the most solo oriented prog bands, but while long solos can ruin songs, IMO it doesn't for Yes. Long interchanging solos work for them because they keep it fresh and interesting, it's not by the numbers and Howe, Squire and Wakeman especially know how to surprise and capitvate me with their solos. They tend to bring about the best moments in songs.

Genesis don't dabble in long solos quite as often but they do have them, but again Banks and Hackett are so original that they never bore me, Rutherford/Collins aren't as virtuostic and showy as Squire/Bruford but they know how to suit the songs perfectly.

So I detest the idea that long solos are automatically boring.

If there's any prog band who ruins their material with long, boring by the numbers solos, it's Dream Theater.

Agree completely, automatically assuming that solos are boring or simply to show off virtuosity is so incredibly unfounded. Of course bands like Dream Theater are a perfect example of solos done wrong, a lot of extended solos in progressive rock fit so well in the songs. If you're good enough to play a solo and make it sound good, then they should certainyl be allowed to do so.

Neapolitan · 05-01-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Granted Yes are one of the most solo oriented prog bands, but while long solos can ruin songs, IMO it doesn't for Yes. Long interchanging solos work for them because they keep it fresh and interesting, it's not by the numbers and Howe, Squire and Wakeman especially know how to surprise and capitvate me with their solos. They tend to bring about the best moments in songs.

I have to bring this up because I thought it was interesting. I heard what they thought was their best stuff never got to album, like Close to the Edge. I thought it was great, but they said they had even better ideas that got lost in the recording process. In a way Yes and Genesis the creative process is the same where they jam out a song until it is recorded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Genesis don't dabble in long solos quite as often but they do have them, but again Banks and Hackett are so original that they never bore me, Rutherford/Collins aren't as virtuostic and showy as Squire/Bruford but they know how to suit the songs perfectly.

You said it better then me, maybe if I said it that way (Genesis isn't virtustic as Yes) you wouldn't had quoted me.

As far as solols Genesis make use of the instrumental songs like "Los Endos" so jamming is important to Genesis, it just different then other bands. Some band the solo is the outro other it's the bridge, one long expansion bridge.
Mike Rutherford admits he isn't the greatest of bass players but he has a couple of tricks like the bass runs and playing staccato but it works.
As a drummer in Yes Bill Bruford has more of a cerebral polyrhythmic appoach to drumming then a four to the floor rock drummer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

So I detest the idea that long solos are automatically boring.

And I'm glad I didn't say that.

All this talk of solos - Why wasn't Traffic part of the survey?

boo boo · 05-01-2009, 09:35 PM

NUTS.

I always forget them for some reason.

Traffic, Moody Blues and Procol Harum added. =D

blachalaheebow · 05-10-2009, 09:11 AM

darn, I voted a LONG time ago, so now I cant vote for SM! >

Antonio · 07-28-2009, 02:37 AM

JETHRO ****ING TULL!!!

but yeah, Ian Anderson is one of my most favorite frontmen/composers

Unknown Soldier · 07-28-2009, 02:47 AM

Voted for Yes just above King Crimson and Rush. I often see so many surveys like the above that fail to mention bands such as Styx or Kansas, are these bands not really seen as prog?

Uriah Heep never thought of them as prog!!!

Also no mention of "Argus" by Wishbone Ash?

Dr.Tchock · 08-06-2009, 03:42 PM

Can, with Pink Floyd as a close second.

Can: they were experimental but also extremely smart. All the member were western art music students, but they never lost their time trying to make Rock music akin to Classical or bring Classical conventions into Rock (unlike that godawful E.L.P. group). Instead they merged a truck load of genres in into one package taking into account all the properties of rock music: simplicity, repetition, minimalism.

Pink Floyd: Because they were the less prog of all the english prog bands. And actually had a good songwriter. Ignoring the post-Syd, pre-Darkside period they always knew how to trim the fat and drop all the pointless demostration of "talent" in over long, over the top compositions. I do love Echoes and Carefull with that Axe, Eugene.

I guess I'm not to big on prog.

boo boo · 08-06-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Tchock

Can, with Pink Floyd as a close second.

Can: they were experimental but also extremely smart. All the member were western art music students, but they never lost their time trying to make Rock music akin to Classical or bring Classical conventions into Rock (unlike that godawful E.L.P. group). Instead they merged a truck load of genres in into one package taking into account all the properties of rock music: simplicity, repetition, minimalism.

Do you ever get tired of being a parrot for pretentious twat music critics?

Quote:

Pink Floyd: Because they were the less prog of all the english prog bands. And actually had a good songwriter. Ignoring the post-Syd, pre-Darkside period they always knew how to trim the fat and drop all the pointless demostration of "talent" in over long, over the top compositions. I do love Echoes and Carefull with that Axe, Eugene.

Oh for f*ck's sake.

Quote:

I guess I'm not to big on prog.

Stay out of the prog section then.

Dr.Tchock · 08-06-2009, 04:34 PM

I mean I can listen to Yes or Rush but not for the songwriting. I mean is Jon Anderson actually saying anything?

Okay, Genesis also know how to write songs. I was being unfair.

Mate, pretension music critics? The only critics I read is Mark Prindle and Starostin, because they are both funny (Prindle because he is and Starostin because he's opinions are truly laughable). I did visit Piero Scaruffi web site once so that may be it.

boo boo · 08-06-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Tchock

I mean I can listen to Yes or Rush but not for the songwriting. I mean is Jon Anderson actually saying anything?

I think songwriters actually do more than just write lyrics, correct me if I'm wrong.

Nor do I think you have to be a good lyricist to be a good songwriter.

Quote:

Okay, Genesis also know how to write songs. I was being unfair.

So do Yes and Rush, it might not conform to the "Pretentious old hippie buttf*cking the corpse of Woody Guthrie while strumming an acoustic guitar" dynamic that people usually associate singing/songwriting with, or the "verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/guitar solo/chorus" dynamic of most rock music but I dunno, I always thought trying different styles of music should be encouraged. I guess not, prog doesn't conform to the rock n roll trifecta. Which is simple, miminal and repetitive, and god forbid you break the rules of rock n roll.

View Poll Results: Favorite?
King Crimson	9	7.26%
Yes	13	10.48%
Pink Floyd	35	28.23%
Genesis	4	3.23%
Jethro Tull	8	6.45%
Emerson, Lake & Palmer	3	2.42%
Rush	8	6.45%
Can	11	8.87%
Gentle Giant	2	1.61%
Van Der Graaf Generator	2	1.61%
Hawkwind	1	0.81%
Caravan	1	0.81%
Magma	0	0%
Uriah Heep	0	0%
Henry Cow	1	0.81%
Mahavishnu Orchestra	3	2.42%
Gong	3	2.42%
Camel	3	2.42%
The Strawbs	1	0.81%
Focus	0	0%
Hatfield and the North	0	0%
Barclay James Harvest	0	0%
Renaissance	0	0%
Eloy	1	0.81%
Premiata Forneria Marconi	0	0%
Comus	5	4.03%
Soft Machine	2	1.61%
Traffic	2	1.61%
The Moody Blues	1	0.81%
Procol Harum	1	0.81%
Wishbone Ash	0	0%
Other	4	3.23%
Voters: 124. You may not vote on this poll

05-10-2009, 09:11 AM	#54 (permalink)
blachalaheebow Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 72	darn, I voted a LONG time ago, so now I cant vote for SM! >

07-28-2009, 02:47 AM	#56 (permalink)
Unknown Soldier Horribly Creative Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, The Big Smoke Posts: 8,265	Voted for Yes just above King Crimson and Rush. I often see so many surveys like the above that fail to mention bands such as Styx or Kansas, are these bands not really seen as prog? Uriah Heep never thought of them as prog!!! Also no mention of "Argus" by Wishbone Ash?

08-06-2009, 03:42 PM	#57 (permalink)
Dr.Tchock Groupie Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 31	Can, with Pink Floyd as a close second. Can: they were experimental but also extremely smart. All the member were western art music students, but they never lost their time trying to make Rock music akin to Classical or bring Classical conventions into Rock (unlike that godawful E.L.P. group). Instead they merged a truck load of genres in into one package taking into account all the properties of rock music: simplicity, repetition, minimalism. Pink Floyd: Because they were the less prog of all the english prog bands. And actually had a good songwriter. Ignoring the post-Syd, pre-Darkside period they always knew how to trim the fat and drop all the pointless demostration of "talent" in over long, over the top compositions. I do love Echoes and Carefull with that Axe, Eugene. I guess I'm not to big on prog.

08-06-2009, 04:34 PM	#59 (permalink)
Dr.Tchock Groupie Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 31	I mean I can listen to Yes or Rush but not for the songwriting. I mean is Jon Anderson actually saying anything? Okay, Genesis also know how to write songs. I was being unfair. Mate, pretension music critics? The only critics I read is Mark Prindle and Starostin, because they are both funny (Prindle because he is and Starostin because he's opinions are truly laughable). I did visit Piero Scaruffi web site once so that may be it.