| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
VanderGraafKommandöh 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
 Posted: May 04 2008 at 13:35 |
Precisely, see my comments above (on the page before now  ), re: what is prog? Prog (as in, what is prog?) is subjective and almost everyone will have different views. It cannot be substantiated.
Edited by James - May 04 2008 at 13:36
|
|
|
 |
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 13:39 |
 James wrote:
Precisely, see my comments above (on the page before now ), re: what is prog?
Prog (as in, what is prog?) is subjective and almost everyone will have different views. It cannot be substantiated.
|
oh sorry, maybe i have had skipped some posts. Too much to read since last night.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 13:51 |
The Progressive Music movement of the mid-late 1960s can be reasonably pinpointed, and the term Progressive Rock was first used on an album released in 1968... I'll have to look it up, as I've forgotten what it was... the music was, rather disappointingly, a bit like Fairport Convention meets Jefferson Airplane, as I recall...
That has not changed, and is not, as such, subjective. What has changed is the use of the term, and the mangling of it into something far more subjective.
King Crimson's debut is widely held to be the first Prog Rock album, and that is good enough for most. Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick - "Pure Prog", if you want.
Edited by Certif1ed - May 04 2008 at 13:52
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 13:54 |
Certif1ed wrote:
The Progressive Music movement of the mid-late 1960s can be reasonably pinpointed, and the term Progressive Rock was first used on an album released in 1968... I'll have to look it up, as I've forgotten what it was... the music was, rather disappointingly, a bit like Fairport Convention meets Jefferson Airplane, as I recall...
That has not changed, and is not, as such, subjective. What has changed is the use of the term, and the mangling of it into something far more subjective.
King Crimson's debut is widely held to be the first Prog Rock album, and that is good enough for most. Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick - "Pure Prog", if you want.
|
So every band that don't sound like Crimson is not prog? You redeemed to death many traditionalists, such as Genesis, that sounded very little like Crimson
|
|
|
|
crimson87
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:00 |
King of Loss wrote:
Basically: PURE PROG IS GOOD AND ALL, BUT PURER PROG IS SO MUCH BETTER! |
That´s what I meant.If I want prog I go to the roots.If I want metal I go to the metal gods Judas Priest ,Iron Maiden and Early metallica , maybe Megadeth.Come on you are trying to tell my that PoS is a prog band???And that all that bands with girls as lead-singers with their "I wannna kill myself" attitude.
By the way , that "frustration" post... It made me laugh ,please keep your psychologist wannabee deep within you.
PD:I DO NOT THINK THAT METAL IS PURE NOISE.
I have a question: why is not Stratovarius on the archives?. if there is place for DT and Rhapsody , I think they should be allowed.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:07 |
CCVP wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
The Progressive Music movement of the mid-late 1960s can be reasonably pinpointed, and the term Progressive Rock was first used on an album released in 1968... I'll have to look it up, as I've forgotten what it was... the music was, rather disappointingly, a bit like Fairport Convention meets Jefferson Airplane, as I recall...
That has not changed, and is not, as such, subjective. What has changed is the use of the term, and the mangling of it into something far more subjective.
King Crimson's debut is widely held to be the first Prog Rock album, and that is good enough for most. Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick - "Pure Prog", if you want.
|
So every band that don't sound like Crimson is not prog? You redeemed to death many traditionalists, such as Genesis, that sounded very little like Crimson
|
Twisting my words...
Edited by Certif1ed - May 04 2008 at 14:08
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:07 |
|
I was mostly referring to the modern term "Progressive Rock", Mark. All sorts of bands are classed (or said to be) as prog rock and many of them are not included here. However, who are we to say what is and isn't?
We all have our ideas and the site has guidlines. Most of us are in agreement as to what prog rock is or isn't, so we all are mostly reading from the same hymn sheet, but there are always a few people who like to claim they're prog rock too, when most people don't think they are. Neither party is wrong or right, in my opinion.
If we honoured the bands or artists thoughts, then bands such as King Crimson or Van der Graaf Generator would not be here, as I believe Fripp and Hammill do not class themselves as prog rock. The same applies for Magma too.
We do include them though, because those bands are different from the mainstream, they're adventurous, innovative and tend to be influenced by the same kind of music as each other.
I probably file my music CDs differently to many people and nobody can say I am wrong or right about this. It's the way I personally file them.
|
|
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:07 |
crimson87 wrote:
King of Loss wrote:
Basically: PURE PROG IS GOOD AND ALL, BUT PURER PROG IS SO MUCH BETTER! |
That´s what I meant.If I want prog I go to the roots.If I want metal I go to the metal gods Judas Priest ,Iron Maiden and Early metallica , maybe Megadeth.Come on you are trying to tell my that PoS is a prog band???And that all that bands with girls as lead-singers with their "I wannna kill myself" attitude.
By the way , that "frustration" post... It made me laugh ,please keep your psychologist wannabee deep within you.
PD:I DO NOT THINK THAT METAL IS PURE NOISE.
I have a question: why is not Stratovarius on the archives?. if there is place for DT and Rhapsody , I think they should be allowed. |
Aw man not this again 
Edited by CCVP - May 04 2008 at 14:15
|
|
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:09 |
Certif1ed wrote:
CCVP wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
The Progressive Music movement of the mid-late 1960s can be reasonably pinpointed, and the term Progressive Rock was first used on an album released in 1968... I'll have to look it up, as I've forgotten what it was... the music was, rather disappointingly, a bit like Fairport Convention meets Jefferson Airplane, as I recall...
That has not changed, and is not, as such, subjective. What has changed is the use of the term, and the mangling of it into something far more subjective.
King Crimson's debut is widely held to be the first Prog Rock album, and that is good enough for most. Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick - "Pure Prog", if you want.
|
So every band that don't sound like Crimson is not prog? You redeemed to death many traditionalists, such as Genesis, that sounded very little like Crimson
|
Twisting my words... |
so please explain exactly what you meant, because i understood that . . .
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:10 |
James wrote:
I was mostly referring to the modern term "Progressive Rock", Mark. All sorts of bands are classed (or said to be) as prog rock and many of them are not included here. However, who are we to say what is and isn't?
We all have our ideas and the site has guidlines. Most of us are in agreement as to what prog rock is or isn't, so we all are mostly reading from the same hymn sheet, but there are always a few people who like to claim they're prog rock too, when most people don't think they are. Neither party is wrong or right, in my opinion.
If we honoured the bands or artists thoughts, then bands such as King Crimson or Van der Graaf Generator would not be here, as I believe Fripp and Hammill do not class themselves as prog rock. The same applies for Magma too.
We do include them though, because those bands are different from the mainstream, they're adventurous, innovative and tend to be influenced by the same kind of music as each other.
I probably file my music CDs differently to many people and nobody can say I am wrong or right about this. It's the way I personally file them.
|
Fill yer boots... what can I say? 
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:11 |
CCVP wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
CCVP wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
The Progressive Music movement of the mid-late 1960s can be reasonably pinpointed, and the term Progressive Rock was first used on an album released in 1968... I'll have to look it up, as I've forgotten what it was... the music was, rather disappointingly, a bit like Fairport Convention meets Jefferson Airplane, as I recall...
That has not changed, and is not, as such, subjective. What has changed is the use of the term, and the mangling of it into something far more subjective.
King Crimson's debut is widely held to be the first Prog Rock album, and that is good enough for most. Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick - "Pure Prog", if you want.
|
So every band that don't sound like Crimson is not prog? You redeemed to death many traditionalists, such as Genesis, that sounded very little like Crimson
|
Twisting my words... |
so please explain exactly what you meant, because i understood that . . .
|
Certif1ed wrote:
Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick. |
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:12 |
I filled them years ago, I'm almost up to my neck in sand.  One more shovel load won't hurt though.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:12 |
 Need anything else be said?
|
|
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:14 |
Certif1ed wrote:
CCVP wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
CCVP wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
The Progressive Music movement of the mid-late 1960s can be reasonably pinpointed, and the term Progressive Rock was first used on an album released in 1968... I'll have to look it up, as I've forgotten what it was... the music was, rather disappointingly, a bit like Fairport Convention meets Jefferson Airplane, as I recall...
That has not changed, and is not, as such, subjective. What has changed is the use of the term, and the mangling of it into something far more subjective.
King Crimson's debut is widely held to be the first Prog Rock album, and that is good enough for most. Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick - "Pure Prog", if you want.
|
So every band that don't sound like Crimson is not prog? You redeemed to death many traditionalists, such as Genesis, that sounded very little like Crimson
|
Twisting my words... |
so please explain exactly what you meant, because i understood that . . .
|
Certif1ed wrote:
Therefore, it is a useful measuring stick. |
|
D'oh!!! sorry for the ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:20 |
CCVP wrote:
D'oh!!! sorry for the ignorance.
|
I didn't put it down to ignorance, I put it down to post-skimming and conclusion-jumping.
Edited by Certif1ed - May 04 2008 at 14:20
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:21 |
stonebeard wrote:
Need anything else be said?
|
Did I leave my webcam on again?
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:40 |
crimson87 wrote:
King of Loss wrote:
Basically: PURE PROG IS GOOD AND ALL, BUT PURER PROG IS SO MUCH BETTER! |
That´s what I meant.If I want prog I go to the roots.If I want metal I go to the metal gods Judas Priest ,Iron Maiden and Early metallica , maybe Megadeth.Come on you are trying to tell my that PoS is a prog band???And that all that bands with girls as lead-singers with their "I wannna kill myself" attitude.
|
If you'd listened to PoS, I doubt you'd be making such a silly comment, they are one of the most progressive bands of the last decade with the adventerous way they have combined metal with classic prog, and in terms of BE with classical as well. I have plenty of female fronted bands in my collection and none of them sing about wanting to kill themselves, maybe you should actually listen to bands rather than pandering to pathetic stereotypes.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 14:53 |
Well, I could have explained exactly what I meant, but I think I've subjected this forum to too many posts of essay length on the subject in the past, and expect this answer to be far from short, despite the fact that huge swathes of description will be left out, and concepts nutshellised for brevity's sake.
I have, like many others here, researched the whole "What is Prog" question, and even attempted to tame the Wikipedia page - I have a Talk Page you can look at if you like, under the user handle "MarkCertif1ed" - but the whole area is fraught with people saying "But what about band X", and "Band Y aren't Prog, they're crap" - and so the whole thing goes around cycically, until the inevitable conclusion is reached that the term "Prog" has taken on a life of its own and means different things to different people, as a genre - rendering the term next to useless.
With no point of reference, any attempt at classification is moot.
As opposed to "genre" (a concept I abhorr in respect to music as a near-impossible attempt to pigeon-hole that, yet again, few completely agree over, and is the whole reason this site needs genre teams, who are experts in their fields), as a definition for a category, Prog Rock is best defined in musical terms by the music that started it all off. This serves as a good point of reference - not as the cast-in-stone way of doing things, which would negate the whole concept of progressive rock as an adjective.
You then need to work out how that music defines the category, what musical criteria need to be fulfilled, and whether other music by other bands fits within the definition thresholds - and that would take an entire encyclopaedia article... one that I don't really have time to complete just now, but I would like to think there are a few people on this forum who would support my rather arrogant claim that I'm up to the task - and a complex site like this one with teams of experts filtering the music.
For example, while there are some, few dispute Black Sabbath as the first heavy metal band - yet not every metal band sounds like Black Sabbath. There are concrete things in the music that we can identify - but this in itself is a long discussion...
Hence my expression.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: May 04 2008 at 15:07 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Well, I could have explained exactly what I meant, but I think I've subjected this forum to too many posts of essay length on the subject in the past, and expect this answer to be far from short, despite the fact that huge swathes of description will be left out, and concepts nutshellised for brevity's sake.
I have, like many others here, researched the whole "What is Prog" question, and even attempted to tame the Wikipedia page - I have a Talk Page you can look at if you like, under the user handle "MarkCertif1ed" - but the whole area is fraught with people saying "But what about band X", and "Band Y aren't Prog, they're crap" - and so the whole thing goes around cycically, until the inevitable conclusion is reached that the term "Prog" has taken on a life of its own and means different things to different people, as a genre - rendering the term next to useless.
With no point of reference, any attempt at classification is moot.
As opposed to "genre" (a concept I abhorr in respect to music as a near-impossible attempt to pigeon-hole that, yet again, few completely agree over, and is the whole reason this site needs genre teams, who are experts in their fields), as a definition for a category, Prog Rock is best defined in musical terms by the music that started it all off. This serves as a good point of reference - not as the cast-in-stone way of doing things, which would negate the whole concept of progressive rock as an adjective.
You then need to work out how that music defines the category, what musical criteria need to be fulfilled, and whether other music by other bands fits within the definition thresholds - and that would take an entire encyclopaedia article... one that I don't really have time to complete just now, but I would like to think there are a few people on this forum who would support my rather arrogant claim that I'm up to the task - and a complex site like this one with teams of experts filtering the music.
For example, while there are some, few dispute Black Sabbath as the first heavy metal band - yet not every metal band sounds like Black Sabbath. There are concrete things in the music that we can identify - but this in itself is a long discussion...
Hence my expression. |
Now THAT is an answer. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
lack of metal knowledge in some reviews
