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

Guybrush · 10-26-2011, 03:55 PM

Personally, and I know that I may contradict popular opinion, I feel progressive rock should be largely composed and played by a rock band or at least contain some rock instrumentation. I would be hesitant to call a band who only improvised on wind instruments rock anything. I do realize there are times when such bands can play in a way which still makes them sort of rock-y (Apocalyptica comes to mind), but when they don't, I am particularly hesitant to call it prog rock. On that note, I personally am a bit hesitant to call Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom (mentioned in my previous post) prog rock. It's certainly avantgarde and progressive in a sense, but where's the rock?

10-26-2011, 03:55 PM	#11 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Personally, and I know that I may contradict popular opinion, I feel progressive rock should be largely composed and played by a rock band or at least contain some rock instrumentation. I would be hesitant to call a band who only improvised on wind instruments rock anything. I do realize there are times when such bands can play in a way which still makes them sort of rock-y (Apocalyptica comes to mind), but when they don't, I am particularly hesitant to call it prog rock. On that note, I personally am a bit hesitant to call Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom (mentioned in my previous post) prog rock. It's certainly avantgarde and progressive in a sense, but where's the rock? __________________ Something Completely Different