Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Posted: December 07 2010 at 13:45
Hercules wrote:
Bjork is not prog in any way.
But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me).
Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in.
Now watch this post get deleted!
Why would we delete your post? If we deleted every silly post here we'd lose 80% of the content.
Ask me why your post is silly.
Ok, thanks I'll answer.
The bands you mention are included in the Prog-Related banner and are not considered to be Prog Rock, just somehow related to Prog, hence the name.
Joined: September 07 2007
Location: Middle-Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 4214
Posted: December 07 2010 at 13:52
Hercules wrote:
Bjork is not prog in any way.
But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me).
Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in.
Now watch this post get deleted!
Don´t you mean Public Image Limited?
A Elbereth Gilthoniel
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos, le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: December 07 2010 at 13:54
Gandalff wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Bjork is not prog in any way.
But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me).
Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in.
Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Latin America
Status: Offline
Points: 305
Posted: December 07 2010 at 13:57
Gandalff wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Bjork is not prog in any way.
But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me).
Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in.
Joined: September 07 2007
Location: Middle-Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 4214
Posted: December 07 2010 at 13:58
Snow Dog wrote:
Gandalff wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Bjork is not prog in any way.
But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me).
Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in.
Now watch this post get deleted!
Don´t you mean Public Image Limited?
Sex Pistols
Sex Pistols are well-known though!
Edited by Gandalff - December 07 2010 at 13:58
A Elbereth Gilthoniel
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos, le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: December 07 2010 at 14:05
Gandalff wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Gandalff wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Bjork is not prog in any way.
But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me).
Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in.
Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
Posted: December 07 2010 at 15:16
Negoba wrote:
For those who actually wonder what is proggy about Bjork, get Medulla...it may be too avant for many tastes but to deny it's progressive is just sour grapes.
Still have it, still hear no rock. If things being experimental means addition to this site we have alot of work to do in adding MANY more artists that are experimental without rock.
Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
So let me get this straight. People still actually care about which artists are on PA and which are not?
Hard to believe, especially since it's so easy to come up with an objective definition of Prog. And, of course, it's vital that we come up with that definition. Also, vital that we don't listen to things that we decided we don't like.
What is the world coming to?
[... aaand scene]
Well, think of it like this. You go to this website about this weird prog thing and you see the artist Bjork on the front page of it. I think that would turn people away from not only this website but also progressive rock as a whole.
[... aaand scene]
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. If you come to this website because you want to find weird (if by that you mean unconventional, thought-provoking) music than Bjork fits right in. If you're looking for "weird prog" (meaning weird instances of Prog music) than Bjork fits quite well again. If whatever you're looking for, you want to find experimentation, regardless of how you might term that, than Bjork is welcome again.
If you're unable to ignore or rationalize the presence of Bjork on this site in any of the previous ways (or in any way at all), I'll have to say your (generic "you") presence on this website will be sorely missed, but we'll get over it quite soon.
As far as questions of progressive rock go, we already have progressive electronic, so what gives about this new found rock puritanism?
For those who actually wonder what is proggy about Bjork, get Medulla...it may be too avant for many tastes but to deny it's progressive is just sour grapes.
Still have it, still hear no rock. If things being experimental means addition to this site we have alot of work to do in adding MANY more artists that are experimental without rock.
You say it like it's a bad thing
I understand that such a shift in perspective may entail a major overhaul. Still, the fact that a change seems discouraging due to sheer work that is implied does not mean it ought to be dismissed without serious consideration. A lot of the artists already on the site have little to do with rock. I'm not only talking about a slew of albums that fit electronic and jazz slots sooner than rock-related ones. Even genres we regard as representative of prog rock, such as avant and rio, hold dubious releases. How much of Kayo Dot's output can be thought of in terms of rock? Sure, there's guitar and drums and even riffs, but most of it is so removed from what we think of as rock that it's hard to make a case for it.
What I'm saying, basically is (1) We should seriously consider the whole rock element. We might come to the conclusion that we want to hold by it. But we should seriously consider it. (2) If we do want to change it, we can set our own terms and rate at which we adopt new things. Nobody expects PA to add all the new artists that qualify overnight. As far as I'm concerned, case-by-case additions are, in fact, the best way to make this shift, with all the ensuing - and somewhat necessary - reactions that go with it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Bjork go home! (the right one)
Topic Options
Snow Dog wrote:
