• Radiohead has forged a unique sound... combining elements of indie and electronica into their interesting blend of alternative rock, the band is doing something distinctively new.
• Concept albums. Both 1997's OK Computer and their most recent Hail to the Theif have definite focuses throughout the album, the former being about the mediocrity of day-to-day life while the latter is more of an establishment criticism.
• The band's essence. Just as Yes is known for its eastern spiritualism, roger dean art, and unintelligible hippie lyrics, Radiohead has done the same, incorporating nihilistic themes into their music and decorating their albums in similarily meaningless art, such as can be seen in their post-OK Computer albums.
  
• The band's song evolve... unlike some groups (ahem) the pieces they write have lots of mood changes. For reference, listen to the track "Paranoid Android" off of OK. The band's sound is constantly evolving as well. Their first album, Pablo Honey, is different from 1995's the Bends, and is a world away from Hail to the Theif.
  
• They're good. Like, really good.
  

I agree 100%, i'm very supportive of being in the archives, the CD "OK Computer" is a progressive masterpiece and, though i have heard (from someone here) that they dont even consider themselves prog, i still feel they are a necessity to the forums.

Amen.  Oh yea, and Karma Police is the best song ever.

I want Radiohead to be separate. They don't get Prog, they get more poli-rock/indie votes cast. That means they are grunge that never died. Then you'd have to go back and count so many other eurofolk as prog, like Bjork and Sigur Ros. If you want to start doing that, by all means, Radiohead is prog. But they're pop-prog, if there is such a thing, which is why I'm wary of all this...

Gaston

Styx is prog?

Where have I been?

Alright, then Radiohead is prog then, but I've already voted no. Radiohead is sarcastic ideoteque and without need for classification. Now be fitter happier all you Fordians.

Anyways, there should just be two sections to this site. Old prog and neo prog. That would settle alot of arguments.

Gaston

Hi Sweetnighter, you're right, STYX is in the Archive, but if you read the bio (that I wrote) you'll find that I doubt they can be considered a progressive band, but even with those doubts I believe STYX, The Serpent is Rising and STYX II (only those three albums) are closer to prog than anything Radiohead did.

Radiohead has some Pink Floyd influence but that's not enough to be considered progressive, because they mixed this influence with the one of other commercial bands like REM.

I'm sure Radiohead is a better band than STYX but I believe they are closer to Indie/alternative than to progressive rock as a genre.

Iván

They have completely shooken their indie roots that was so undeniably theirs with the release of pablo honey, OK Computer is far more progressive than The Serpent is Rising. And as far as sigur ros "having to be considered prog," many already do, for ive seen them recomended as a prog band by many a member.

........ here we go again!

---------------------------

how do i put an unbroken line in?

why do you guys always want bands to be included on that site? i don't think it makes that much of a change, unless we're really missing a true prog band. But I hear quite a lot of comments like "band A is included, and band B is better than band A (or has more prog), so we need band B on this site!"

prog has so many different subgenres already, and so many bands on here, I don't think we need to include every band that kinda sounds like prog, especially not those quite popular ones you can find information about on many other sites. If you wanna talk about those bands you can still open a thread, the people interested will take part in the discussion! you don't need a review part for all of them

bebieM

Here we go again....Radiohead is just as much Prog Rock as Skid Row is heavy metal ! ! !  AAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH.....They are not even Boarderline Prog. So if you really want to torch this site put up a poll requesting Moby at Prog Archives, he at least runs a few great Prog tunes on PLAY ! ! !

____________

Lunar

p.s. Is it possible to not allow more Radiohead threads ? 

God bless the starter of this thread (mind you, I mean it!)... I have looked over the archives of this board and found that all in all, people agree that Radiohead are a special sort of prog, that can't be overlooked. COME ON, THEY'RE MORE PROG THAN TOOL! I mean, Toll's only prog album is Lateralus( and don't tell me that their eary punk-oriented stuff could be called prog, cause you'd be a GD liar!), whilst Radiohead's evewry single album since The bends is prog! DEBNY THAT, UNWORTHY DETRACTORS! ( Just kidding, now, everyone has a right to an opinion, I'm just a 14 year-old brat; a horrendous potty-mouth from Eastern Europe)

Actually the thing is Bebe.. if you read enough around here you'll find that most guys like to stay inside their box... it makes them comfortable, so they are constantly trying to fit everything into that box with them...

Radiohead are not prog... and a few (somewhat sound prog) moments don't make them prog.  I like Radiohead.. actually Street Spirit from "The Bends" is playing here right now... Radiohead did not start out as a prog band... whereas Styx did.  Even tho Styx quickly moved out of the genre doesn't change the fact that thats how they began.

Now there's a new band called Intense... they sound prog.. does anyone know anything about them??

Just because a band mkaes a concept album, that doesn't make them prog. If the concept album point were true, then Green Day and The Who should be put in as well. (and while i enjoy both of those bands, neither are in any way prog.) 

However, i do feel that Radiohead has a progressive "feel" to their music, and if the you think they should be in here, then more powere to you.  Same goes for those who don't want them to be here

the musical box wrote: NO!! I hate them so much that if they joined id prolly leave. They are loved by the masses (18 and under) and therefore are NOT PROG!!

I wish I was 18 or under...

I think Radiohead are a superb band, and have voiced my opinion one too many times about how proggy I think they are. They're proggier than most modern prog bands - not least because they PROGRESS and write ORIGINAL material.

Certif1ed wrote: the musical box wrote: NO!! I hate them so much that if they joined id prolly leave. They are loved by the masses (18 and under) and therefore are NOT PROG!! I wish I was 18 or under... I think Radiohead are a superb band, and have voiced my opinion one too many times about how proggy I think they are. They're proggier than most modern prog bands - not least because they PROGRESS and write ORIGINAL material.

Im under 18 and i hate them!!! and Cert, if progressing and writing original material were the only requirements of prog, dont ya think think guys like Elvis and Angelbert Humperdink would be on the site?

I did say "not least"...

I could elaborate as long as you can stay awake...

Certif1ed wrote: I did say "not least"... I could elaborate as long as you can stay awake...

i missed that...and im sure you could.

Remember as a newb when we argued about "who was more instrumental in the prog movement: Floyd or Crimson"? ..i do..you owned my ass! But that still doesnt make your opinion more valid. Fact is: Radiohead is not prog.

Queen also started out as a prog band - and made at least 3 very sound prog LPs - are you suggesting they should be in the archives?

Actually some critics said that, but Queen deny that their stuff was prog at all... and I didn't find it prog at all either...

I do - especially Queen, Queen II and A Night At The Opera.

Queen II, only side two can with goodwill be described as prog-rock (the FM written songs), perhaps even side A, but already more Glitter-pompous-Glam-rock. Queen I is a Led Zep-style rock album, with only hints of progressiveness. And the rest of their catalogue stands well away of prog-rock.

Only Hot space is really progrock, but I think I'm alone on this

You missed out your statement "Radiohead did not start out as a prog band... whereas Styx did.  Even tho Styx quickly moved out of the genre doesn't change the fact that thats how they began.", which preceeded my comments about Queen and makes a whole different sense of the thread you quoted.

Naughty TF - trying dirty, underhanded tactics to swing the argument? That's what I do - it must be catching

This is gruesome.TISK TISK TISK.

WHY DON'T WE MAIL SOMEONE FROM THE OFFICIAL RADIOHEAD SITE WHO'D HAPPEN TO BE AN EXPERT IN RADIOHEAD?

Certif1ed wrote: You missed out your statement "Radiohead did not start out as a prog band... whereas Styx did.  Even tho Styx quickly moved out of the genre doesn't change the fact that thats how they began.", which preceeded my comments about Queen and makes a whole different sense of the thread you quoted. Naughty TF - trying dirty, underhanded tactics to swing the argument? That's what I do - it must be catching

No Cert, you just keep going and going and going until we give in.
I keep a can of petrol and a box of matches at the side of my PC just in case I feel the need to end it all midway through one of your paragraphs!

Certif1ed wrote: You missed out your statement "Radiohead did not start out as a prog band... whereas Styx did.  Even tho Styx quickly moved out of the genre doesn't change the fact that thats how they began.", which preceeded my comments about Queen and makes a whole different sense of the thread you quoted. Naughty TF - trying dirty, underhanded tactics to swing the argument? That's what I do - it must be catching

Actually no i didn't miss it... cause as I said "Queen did not start out as a prog band"... of them all... only Styx did... so whats your point here again??

What's gruesome about a discussion?

There's no point asking anyone connected with Radiohead - Radiohead don't consider themselves prog (I know, I went to school with their manager) - but then neither did a bunch of bands that were posthumously christened "prog". Contrarily, many so-called prog bands now are anything but...

This is about what WE think. Plus there's a straw poll which looks quite close to me - and why does this question KEEP being asked? This would suggest that a lot of people would like them to be prog - and it's quite fascinating the way it divides opinion so neatly.

A bit like Queen, really - I think the real reason that most proggers don't want either band to be considered prog is that both have had numerous chart hits - and that is somehow threatening. Even Marillion and Pink Floyd get a hard time from some of the more "elitist" progholes - and as for the likes of Supertramp, Styx and Uriah Heep - well, that's a whole different receptacle of piscine lifeforms.

At the end of the day, it's down to the guardians of the Archives who gets in and who doesn't - and up to us to discuss it, should we so desire 

Certif1ed wrote: the musical box wrote: Remember as a newb when we argued about "who was more instrumental in the prog movement: Floyd or Crimson"? ..i do..you owned my ass! I rarely remember anything I write - it all tends to be spontaneous. I was probably wrong in that argument, as the topic seems entirely subjective - if I "owned your ass", then I was probably using dirty, underhand, subversive debating techniques and misleading facts to justify what I was saying... again . Please feel free to correct me on any occasion you see fit... But that still doesnt make your opinion more valid. True. Fact is: Radiohead is not prog. Er... no; Fact is: that is opinion, not fact...

..thats true...i kinda contradicted myself there eh?

threefates wrote: Certif1ed wrote: You missed out your statement "Radiohead did not start out as a prog band... whereas Styx did.  Even tho Styx quickly moved out of the genre doesn't change the fact that thats how they began.", which preceeded my comments about Queen and makes a whole different sense of the thread you quoted. Naughty TF - trying dirty, underhanded tactics to swing the argument? That's what I do - it must be catching Actually no i didn't miss it... cause as I said "Queen did not start out as a prog band"... of them all... only Styx did... so whats your point here again??

Yes, you said "Queen did not start out as a prog band". I said they did.

Your point was?

Ah - you didn't make that very clear - I guess you'd know that better than most

Most articles I've ever read on Queen describe them as "Initially a bombastic, operatic prog-rock band with a huge helping of Vaudeville" - or something along those lines. The word "prog" almost always appears in descriptions of them (something that will probably never happen to Radiohead), and to me there's a lot of good prog on the first two albums even if it's a bit camp ("My Fairy King"...)

Of course, what Queen themselves thought and what everyone else thinks about their music is not always the same thing.

Talking about Queen.

Does anyone know of a concert from their early years (1975) that's available on CD. I remember once hearing a version of Bohemian Rhapsody with instead of the operetic part a fragment of "The March Of The Black Queen" it was great, but I can't find it anywhere.

So if any one knows a title and how to order please inform me.

Thanks Tuxon

If Radiohead were to be let into the Archives, then you'd have to let in Muse as well.  They are, IMO, just as prog as Radiohead. 

This then would throw up all sorts of debates about whether other indie art-rockers should also be allowed entry, along with the post-rock crowd like Sonic Youth and Pavement.

In my view, none of the afore-mentioned bands should go in.  We can argue that Radiohead were influenced by King Crimson etc, but Iron Maiden's biggest influence was Gabriel-era Genesis, and I don't see people putting their case forward.  Better to let it lie.

Sweetnighter wrote: Hey, Tull hates being called prog and so does Fripp. What of it? They're not the ones making the calls... maani and team are!

why do they hate it?

Aaron

let's all make a new year resolution.................

not to have this topic again!     

-------------------------------------------------

if you hadn't nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies!

*shrugs*

In my CD collection, they are under progrock. Then again, so are Muse and Kate Bush. YMMV.

This forum is nuts.....

Sweetnighter wrote: Radiohead has forged a unique sound... combining elements of indie and electronica into their interesting blend of alternative rock, the band is doing something distinctively new. Concept albums. Both 1997's OK Computer and their most recent Hail to the Theif have definite focuses throughout the album, the former being about the mediocrity of day-to-day life while the latter is more of an establishment criticism. The band's essence. Just as Yes is known for its eastern spiritualism, roger dean art, and unintelligible hippie lyrics, Radiohead has done the same, incorporating nihilistic themes into their music and decorating their albums in similarily meaningless art, such as can be seen in their post-OK Computer albums. The band's song evolve... unlike some groups (ahem) the pieces they write have lots of mood changes. For reference, listen to the track "Paranoid Android" off of OK. The band's sound is constantly evolving as well. Their first album, Pablo Honey, is different from 1995's the Bends, and is a world away from Hail to the Theif. They're good. Like, really good.

I agree with all of this, but in my opinion, Radiohead is not a prog rock band.

chorus of one wrote: This forum is nuts.....

Does that make us all squirrels, then?

Root Pepper wrote: Radiohead are cool but SO BORING!!

This statement brought to you by a person with a man playing guitar in a dead band with a bucket on his head in their sig.

Righto.....

Best part about Radiohead - the message, if you grasp it. It's anything but boring.

Gaston

Gaston wrote: Root Pepper wrote: Radiohead are cool but SO BORING!! This statement brought to you by a person with a man playing guitar in a dead band with a bucket on his head in their sig.

You obviously know nothing of Buckethead, and write me back when you do.

I listened to Radiohead religiously and loved everything they did, until I realized how morose and pretentious a lot of their music is. I found there is music out there that is rooted in a greater concept of POSITIVE. I thought Radiohead was the greatest band at one point too, but hey, you go ahead and keep you mind shut.

RadioHead have said that they hate prog rock ( think they said this around the time of OK computer). I still like them though!

Is this still going on?

Listen to Kid A or Amnesiac (particularly), then tell me you don't hear strong Can influences - and not a trace of "Alternative Rock". Both albums are pure prog - and I hear definite Barclay James Harvest/Pink Floyd influences on "OK Computer".

Even though Radiohead hate the term prog - I know they do, since I know their manager - it does not mean that their music isn't prog. King Crimson didn't describe "ITCOTCK" as a prog album when they released that either.

Anyway, they're a sight more prog than Asia or Uriah Heep