Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

With that said, one could argue that Zeppelin was more 'progressive' even if blatant song thieves. Allmans might be more technical but would be more dry, and blatant in their output. Zeppelin experimented in a myriad of unconventional instruments in recording, extended technique, etc.

Songs like Kashmir, No Quarter, etc. prove that the band was much more about studio depth, and songwriting, than actual chord technique. Zep were exceptionally proficient in studio, along with technical, which really set them apart from most mainstream bands from the 1970s, even good ones, that play very complex music by today's standards, but sound much older. I imagine for their time, Zeppelin sounded fairly future looking.

Which brings us to the original point, it's kind of unfair how prog is blandly stereotyped as anything that's complex.

Youre right, The Allmans were more technical and more traditional, while zepp were more experimental. But you cant blame a band for sticking to their roots. And zepp deserves credit for being experimental. But while The Allmans were more traditional, they were also a pioneering band of southern rock. They had a pretty original sound.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 10-26-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Youre right, The Allmans were more technical and more traditional, while zepp were more experimental. But you cant blame a band for sticking to their roots. And zepp deserves credit for being experimental. But while The Allmans were more traditional, they were also the pioneering band of southern rock.

I was trying to steer away from the Allmans vs Zep discussion because it has relatively nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I was trying to steer away from the Allmans vs Zep discussion because it has relatively nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Well the topic is "should rock be considered prog just because it is technical?" And my question was "could the Allmans be considered prog because they are technical?" It somewhat fits into the topic. But yes, the Zepp vs Allmans is off topic. But it was a sub-topic of something that was on topic.

Guybrush · 10-26-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Right, but one could argue that many prog bands are 50% or more Jazz, or classical than rock. I mean, what makes them particularly rock, anyway?

To me, at it's simplest, rock music means music played by a rock band which basically means played by someone doing something like electric guitar, a drum kit, bass guitar and perhaps someone on keyboard. If these guys play jazz, you call it jazz rock or fusion. If they are experimental in some way, you may call it symphonic rock or art rock or what have you.

That's the jist of it the way I see it .. (and again also why I'm hesitant to accept Rock Bottom as prog "rock")

SIRIUSB · 10-26-2011, 05:41 PM

I don't consider either the Allmans or Led Zep to be Progressive Rock . . . . King Crimson and Jethro Tull are Progressive Rock.

Progressive Rock has always been colored with odd time signatures, of which both Crimson & Tull are masters.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 10-28-2011, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

To me, at it's simplest, rock music means music played by a rock band which basically means played by someone doing something like electric guitar, a drum kit, bass guitar and perhaps someone on keyboard. If these guys play jazz, you call it jazz rock or fusion. If they are experimental in some way, you may call it symphonic rock or art rock or what have you.

That's the jist of it the way I see it .. (and again also why I'm hesitant to accept Rock Bottom as prog "rock")

Would that bar Gentle Giant, as well?

Guybrush · 10-29-2011, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Would that bar Gentle Giant, as well?

No, Gentle Giant was a rock band. They played their songs with guitar, drums, bass guitar, keyboards. Perhaps they were not all present at the same time, but I never wrote anything about that, did I?

edit :

I'm in no way strict about this. For example, I definetly consider ELP a rock band despite the general lack of guitar. To be perfectly honest, I can accept Rock Bottom as prog too as soon as you get past the opener. I just don't see what's "rock" about a person playing the piano and singing something which has just about no rock vibe. I can accept that rock bands sometimes play songs that are not rock songs.

Howard the Duck · 10-29-2011, 02:11 AM

um, song cycles and a recurring theme also?

blastingas10 · 10-29-2011, 02:27 AM

I heard that ELP recruited mitch mitchell as the drummer, and he showed up to jam with body guards and an arsenal of weaapons haha. I also heard that it was planned for Hendrix to join the group and they would be called HELP, but he died before it could happen

Guybrush · 10-29-2011, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

um, song cycles and a recurring theme also?

The Phantom of the Opera Musical has recurring themes. Is that prog rock? What about classical music? Is that prog rock?

10-26-2011, 05:41 PM	#25 (permalink)
SIRIUSB Luciferian Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 278	I don't consider either the Allmans or Led Zep to be Progressive Rock . . . . King Crimson and Jethro Tull are Progressive Rock. Progressive Rock has always been colored with odd time signatures, of which both Crimson & Tull are masters. Last edited by SIRIUSB; 10-27-2011 at 07:52 AM.

10-29-2011, 02:27 AM	#29 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I heard that ELP recruited mitch mitchell as the drummer, and he showed up to jam with body guards and an arsenal of weaapons haha. I also heard that it was planned for Hendrix to join the group and they would be called HELP, but he died before it could happen