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

RMR · 10-21-2011, 07:22 PM

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

...Definitely not, although I have pondered this question many times, and it is discussed ad nauseam over on forums at prog archives, and they seem to have taken this approach on their site as now almost every technical band is open to be reviewed over there.

If you put the question in reverse (if that's relevant, maybe not), it would be: can non-technicial music be progressive, and I think to the answer to that question is yes. As an example, take many of the tracks from Tull's "Heavy Horses," which I do take to be progressive rock: "Moth's" & "One Brown Mouse" are maybe the best examples.

10-21-2011, 07:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
RMR Front to Back Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 360	"Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?" ...Definitely not, although I have pondered this question many times, and it is discussed ad nauseam over on forums at prog archives, and they seem to have taken this approach on their site as now almost every technical band is open to be reviewed over there. If you put the question in reverse (if that's relevant, maybe not), it would be: can non-technicial music be progressive, and I think to the answer to that question is yes. As an example, take many of the tracks from Tull's "Heavy Horses," which I do take to be progressive rock: "Moth's" & "One Brown Mouse" are maybe the best examples. __________________ RMR My music reivew site: RMR Music Reviews