Gorillaz

A non-Gorrilaz post.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Logan wrote: If you mean at PA, then it's quite likely.  If you mean in the world, then no, you're not the only one.  Prog means different things to different people and I rather think that the prog term should be shot and put out of its misery -- the term is so overused and abused, and it does not leave me amused.  This site could continue as Prog Archives for sentimental (and financial) reasons.  Of course there is such a thing as Prog, but it's too loose a term to be of much value to me to describe such disparate music at, and considerable for, PA.   I honestly disagree with this position.   It's true that the term Prog is vague and that is oversused, specially by people who don't have the slightest idea what Prog is, but changing the name would be equally to killing it.   People love it because they have at least an idea what it is and reminds of iconic bands, plus the fact that any term would also be inaccurate and in some moment overused.   Lets keep the term but not make it so vague that any band could be added.   Iván

Fair points. I wouldn't really get rid of the term (I also don't like how the word progressive is often used to describe music or bands themselves here -- not all Prog need be progressive and not all progressive music is Prog), but I would rather like to start using the term progum to collectively describe the styles of music held under (or potentially suitable for) PA's prog umbrella (progum as in progumbrella).  Even though most here would recognise music that clearly fits classic Prog "movement" expectations, there will always be a nebulous area and differences in interpretation (as well as associations made). 

It's important for people to understand more than Prog-Proper for the site (I'll call it generic Prog even though an important aspect to me of progressive rock was that it blended and experimented with various styles to create non-generic music), but also to be reasonably familiar with all of the categories here so that one can make appropriate associations -- one band, for instance, may draw on Faust and another on ELP.  The traditional Prog enthusiast is more likely to recognise the suitability of the one that draws on ELP.  Side-note:  I have sometimes wondered if some people assume something Is Prog just because it was accepted for PA and think that if something was rejected that that definitively makes music non-Prog.

I actually think that the parameters of the progum that can be considered for PA should be expanding.  If progressive rock is progressive, we should progress with it, but at the same time I do think it's important to clarify the term more and maybe tighten category definitions (we do need limits for this site to mean more than musicarchives).  People will suggest most anything, but at least we have gatekeepers.  Of course even team members do not always agree on what is right for their category or even what is progressive, and I don't think we'll ever find concord in such matters because we operate under our standards and make different musical associations (if a band sounds similar to music from a band I know and is in PA, then I might find accepting it easier, but another who is unfamiliar with the musical references might see nothing right for PA there).

I think we're missing a lot of great experimental acts that dabbled in, or referenced rock.  Others think we should be more lenient when it comes to AOR types band that never really progressed away from the rock format, or stereotypically rock/ metal ones (ones that stuck to the basic conventions even if they played with longer songs).  Of course the structure of the compositions is really important, and one finds structural similarities in bands as diverse as Marillion and Magma (maybe those two bands are just two sides of the same coin), or Art Zoyd and Dream Theater, Spock's Beard and Igor Wakhevitch, Henry Cow and Death....

My kids keep interrupting me so this post is start and stop, so sorry for the rambling. Progum on!

lucas wrote: Who's next : Massive Attack ?

Haha----a better suggestion than Gorillaz though

Shouldn't this be moved to Just for Fun?

ianj1234 wrote: well, Gorillaz definitely could be viewed as "trip-hop". personally I think their music is definitely creative, and I've noticed that alot of their songs don't really quiet fit the regular "abacab" format. There's definitely some creativity, and experimentation in some of their music that could be placed under art-rock. but doesn't this description sound vaguely like a few other bands already listed in progarchives though? Like... - Electric Light Orchestra - Peter Gabriel - Talking Heads - Muse I'm not saying i'm a fan of Gorrillaz necessarily, in fact I might say that they're not really my cup of tea. But Ehh, not really quite sure on it to be frank.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: ianj1234 wrote: well, Gorillaz definitely could be viewed as "trip-hop". personally I think their music is definitely creative, and I've noticed that alot of their songs don't really quiet fit the regular "abacab" format. There's definitely some creativity, and experimentation in some of their music that could be placed under art-rock. but doesn't this description sound vaguely like a few other bands already listed in progarchives though? Like... - Electric Light Orchestra - Peter Gabriel - Talking Heads - Muse I'm not saying i'm a fan of Gorrillaz necessarily, in fact I might say that they're not really my cup of tea. But Ehh, not really quite sure on it to be frank. 1.- ELO: Has at least 2 100% Prog albums. 2.- PG 1 and 2 are Prog albums, plus he has a place granted due to his participation in Genesis  3.- Talking Heads: I don't agree with them, but they are closer than Gorillaz 4.- Muse is a light Prog band, plus they are in Prog Related

Gabriel is here in a fully fledged Prog category (Crossover) although I do kinda agree with the Chris appraisal of his first 4 albums, but he is not here purely by being a member of an important Progressive Rock band. The so-called 'Collins argument' strikes me as being a textbook example of confusing the letter of the law with the spirit of the law: Item 3 states m'lud:

Members of important progressive rock bands - Although most of the recorded solo output of artists like Greg Lake and David Gilmour falls more in a mainstream rock style, their contributions to progressive rock in their respective bands insures them a place in our prog-related genre.

I don't think the PR definition was ever designed to be an either/or 'tick sheet' and certainly the wording of 'insures' (sic) is regrettable in the context of Lake and Gilmour whose solo output is for me, plain vanilla rock. There are seven broad ranging parameters in the PR description and it would be unwise to consider any of these in isolation. There is a lot of water under the bridge (where trolls live) with regards the history of many artists in PR and to be honest, I couldn't really provide a cogent argument for the inclusion of the likes of Greg Lake, Talking Heads, The Church, Black Sabbath, Kate Bush, John Cale, Yngwie Malmsteen, Mercury Rev, Blue Oyster Cult (the list goes on) Of course it's all ultimately an inexact science so matters of taste, historical context and relevance loom large when we are dealing with Prog Related i.e. the evaluation of Prog is not qualitative, unlike other Non Prog categories. I'm not going to pretend I've heard all of Phil Collins' solo material but what I have heard should be afforded the same deference and credence as that afforded to a bouquet of roses at a greenfly convention.

Edited by ExittheLemming - July 07 2014 at 07:01

Gorillaz?? LOL

Just look at Peter Gabriel's solo shows. It's fantastic, full of background plots, it's just like a theatre. Even if the music isn't prog at all, he still uses genial ideas in the same way he did in Genesis, and you know, his playing on stage is something definitive and essential to any prog music fan.

^Thanks for that insightful input, but there is no need to bring this thread back in this subforum, I'm closing this.