Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > Just for Fun
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - is prog prog ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedis prog prog ?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
refugee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: is prog prog ?
    Posted: June 08 2010 at 05:09
Sorry, Garry, I didn’t expect you to return. Welcome to the forums! Smile

EDIT: I just realised that I’ve said sorry three times in this thread already. Apparently it’s not the hardest word after all.


Edited by refugee - June 08 2010 at 05:36
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
Back to Top
garrry the pirrrate View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2010
Location: in my head
Status: Offline
Points: 3 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 22:20
No that was the Troggs, world famous for creating "Trogg rock"
Back to Top
garrry the pirrrate View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2010
Location: in my head
Status: Offline
Points: 3 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 22:18
it's Not a hit and run tactic at all, although I may just be making a 2nd post just to disprove your theory -such that it is.
In that case you may have to potentially make up a new defination for someone who signs up, logs on makes one post, then only makes another post when someone accuses them of signing up, logging on and only making one post.
 
 
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 10:36
Seriusly im not serius, but prog is great music, great music is not boring, everyone here listen to prog music, everyone here seems to be bored, so prog is not prog.

Edited by tamijo - June 07 2010 at 10:37
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
TwoOneOneTwo View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 34 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 10:32
The Progs... Didn't they do that song Wild Thing?
 
In that case, no the progs are not prog.
 
Stern Smile
 
Rush - Time Machine Tour - August 7th in Seattle!
Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 09:54
I was aware that you were joking... no offence taken for being misunderrated. But really - everything in this post modern world is serious - if you want it to be.
Back to Top
refugee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 09:11
Originally posted by Paravion Paravion wrote:

Originally posted by refugee refugee wrote:

Can we define a blotch by saying it’s identical with its own shape? That would be intellectual laziness since we can’t understand the meaning of "blotch" without having a notion of its negation, the "non-blotch" (it’s the same with "rabbit", of course), or, to use a more accurate term, the "hctolb" ("tibbar" etc.). Thus the negation of the meaning is a crucial part of the meaning itself. Talking about prog, gorp is both in the core and the margins of our understanding of the phenonema. In other words: Prog is and is not prog, because it is also gorp, the very opposite of prog.

I hope this clears things up. Cheers!

Jaques Derrida (I’m dead, but I won’t lie down)
To account for the notion 'meaning' in terms of antonyms is an oversimplified structuralist account. A structuralist account of meaning has provided many theorists with considerable headaches. (suggested reading: Quine, Willard: The problem of meaning in linguistics in From a logical point of view (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961)). Today, a structuralist account of meaning is generally considered meaningless.

What's the opposite (antonym) of a rabbit?

I hope this helps to obscure things further. 


Sorry if I confused you. Like most posters here I wasn’t serious at all. Then again, if you actually understood that I was joking, sorry for "misunderrating" you. LOLSmile
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:10
Not really, however it is prog.

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 07 2010 at 07:11
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:07
Originally posted by refugee refugee wrote:

Can we define a blotch by saying it’s identical with its own shape? That would be intellectual laziness since we can’t understand the meaning of "blotch" without having a notion of its negation, the "non-blotch" (it’s the same with "rabbit", of course), or, to use a more accurate term, the "hctolb" ("tibbar" etc.). Thus the negation of the meaning is a crucial part of the meaning itself. Talking about prog, gorp is both in the core and the margins of our understanding of the phenonema. In other words: Prog is and is not prog, because it is also gorp, the very opposite of prog.

I hope this clears things up. Cheers!

Jaques Derrida (I’m dead, but I won’t lie down)
To account for the notion 'meaning' in terms of antonyms is an oversimplified structuralist account. A structuralist account of meaning has provided many theorists with considerable headaches. (suggested reading: Quine, Willard: The problem of meaning in linguistics in From a logical point of view (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961)). Today, a structuralist account of meaning is generally considered meaningless.

What's the opposite (antonym) of a rabbit?

I hope this helps to obscure things further. 


Edited by Paravion - June 07 2010 at 07:14
Back to Top
refugee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 06:39
Another highly relevant question: Is Garry a Pirrate? I have a friend whose last name is Parrott. That doesn’t make him a parrot, though he looks like a pirate. What is a Pirrate anyway? Maybe it means someone using a hit-and-run tactic: Log on, write one post, then beat it. Yeah, I think I’ll go for that definition. A new word in my vocabulary!
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
Back to Top
refugee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 06:02
Can we define a blotch by saying it’s identical with its own shape? That would be intellectual laziness since we can’t understand the meaning of "blotch" without having a notion of its negation, the "non-blotch" (it’s the same with "rabbit", of course), or, to use a more accurate term, the "hctolb" ("tibbar" etc.). Thus the negation of the meaning is a crucial part of the meaning itself. Talking about prog, gorp is both in the core and the margins of our understanding of the phenonema. In other words: Prog is and is not prog, because it is also gorp, the very opposite of prog.

I hope this clears things up. Cheers!

Jaques Derrida (I’m dead, but I won’t lie down)


Edited by refugee - June 07 2010 at 06:03
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:12
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Is it so hard to imagine that there could be entities not identical with themselves? < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">Consider infinite (boundless) entities.
 
When linguistically coded the same way, as is the case with prog and prog (the exact same string of phonemes) - yes - it would be hard to imagine. Also, it's difficult to talk of prog as an 'entity' - it's rather a category.  

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Unless we can give a rigid definition for prog, there is no reason to assume that the first "prog" in "prog is prog" is exactly the same as the second "prog" - in fact there's no way it could be.
There is every reason to assume it's the same. What (besides far-fetch speculation and out of place sense-making) would make you assume otherwise? It's obvious that the referential range for prog is rather big, and that it can refer to many (more or less distinct) styles of music. 

But. Within the scope of traditional philosophy of language - I'd say that the sentence 'prog is prog' is analytically true. It's a tautology and always true by virtue of word meaning and without having to refer to the facts of the world.  In contrast, a sentence like 'Ian Anderson plays the flute' is synthetic and true because it accords with the facts of the world.

So, prog IS prog.


Edited by Paravion - June 07 2010 at 05:48
Back to Top
Falx View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 05 2010
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 859 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2010 at 06:52
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by Falx Falx wrote:

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

Frog is Prog with an F, so actualy Prog rock is falce its actualy Frog Rock, only less Rock more prince then Frog Prince, Prog Prince, Prince is Prog.  

No, Magma is frog rock Tongue
As does this frog prog? uuuuhh?
Hell yeah! LOL

=F=
"You must go beyond the limit of the limit of your limits!" - Mr. Doctor
"It is our duty as men and women to proceed as though the limits of our abilities do not exist." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17748 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 20:01
Originally posted by Evolutionary Sleeper Evolutionary Sleeper wrote:

Just because it's good doesn't mean it's prog.
 
Or vice versa! ... don't forget that!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Vompatti View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 16:03
Shocked

Actually, now that I think about it, Fun House is quite progressive. Either Proto-Prog or Heavy Prog, I think. Although "We Will Fall" on the debut album is definitely Psychedelic/Space Rock. Or possibly Raga Rock.


Edited by Vompatti - June 03 2010 at 16:05
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I don´t know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 15:42
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

And I think we all know that the best band in the whole universe is The Stooges. Stern Smile

Well, I must discuss it. Think that Mötorhead prog universe has risen all us with his marvellous vocals along the 20th century. Symphonic Stooges are overrated, in my humble opinion of course.Ouch

SYMPHONIC Stooges?! Confused They're RIO, not symph. Stern Smile

I think both of us are wrong, look what Wikipedia tells...Confused

The Stooges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with The Three Stooges.
The Stooges

The Stooges performing in Milan, Italy on September 2, 2006.
Background information
Also known asIggy and The Stooges
Iggy Pop and The Stooges
The Psychedelic Stooges
OriginAnn Arbor, Michigan, United States
GenresZEUH progressive rock, garage prog,protoprog, punk prog
Years active1967–1971
1972–1974
2003–present
LabelsElektra, Columbia, Virgin
Associated actsIggy Pop, The Iguanas,Minutemen, Sonic's Rendezvous Band, Destroy All Monsters
WebsiteOfficial Website
 
Members
Iggy Pop
Scott Asheton
Steve Mackay
James Williamson
Mike Watt
Former members
Dave Alexander
Ron Asheton
Billy Cheatham
Jimmy Recca
Bob Sheff
Scott Thurston
Zeke Zettner

The Stooges (also known as Iggy and The Stooges) is an American  ZEUHL band from Ann Arbor, Michigan first active from 1967 to 1974, and later reformed in 2003. Although they sold few records in their original incarnation and often performed for indifferent or hostile audiences, the Stooges are widely regarded as instrumental in the rise of progressive rock,



Edited by SergiUriah - June 03 2010 at 15:44


Back to Top
Vompatti View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 13:52
Originally posted by SergiUriah SergiUriah wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

And I think we all know that the best band in the whole universe is The Stooges. Stern Smile

Well, I must discuss it. Think that Mötorhead prog universe has risen all us with his marvellous vocals along the 20th century. Symphonic Stooges are overrated, in my humble opinion of course.Ouch

SYMPHONIC Stooges?! Confused They're RIO, not symph. Stern Smile
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I don´t know
Status: Offline
Points: 453 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 13:48
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

And I think we all know that the best band in the whole universe is The Stooges. Stern Smile

Well, I must discuss it. Think that Mötorhead prog universe has risen all us with his marvellous vocals along the 20th century. Symphonic Stooges are overrated, in my humble opinion of course.Ouch


Back to Top
Evolver View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 13:21
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

And I think we all know that the best band in the whole universe is The Stooges. Stern Smile
Only when Curly was with the group.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Back to Top
Vompatti View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2010 at 11:14
I'm neither chauvinist nor imperialist, for I like exotic women! Disapprove

And I think we all know that the best band in the whole universe is The Stooges. Stern Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.170 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.