Are they progressive?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66121
Printed Date: November 22 2024 at 22:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Are they progressive?
Posted By: (De)progressive
Subject: Are they progressive?
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 03:21
|
I wanted to create a topic to talk about the bands that often discussed about their progression such as Radiohead, Muse, Swans, Can, Neu!, Neurosis, Cult Of Luna etc. Is there any bands like these that their progression is questionable in some views? ------------- ''Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment.'' (Friedrich Nietzsche) 
|
Replies:
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 05:25
|
Radiohead are definitely prog. Their attitude is maybe the proggiest of all bands of this millennium. We just have to admit that the prog of the 70's doesn't define the prog of today. Jonny Greenwood alone would take any band to the Olympus of prog. Muse do have some prog leanings, but have still some way to go. Of the others I have no opinion. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 06:14
|
"Bands like these" is a little problematic, since there's a world of difference between, say, Muse and Neu.
If we limit our discussion to Krautrock bands, I certainly believe it was a wise decision to incorporate them in a website devoted to progressive rock. Can and Neu may have recorded albums which sound quite different from what their "symphonic" contemporaries were doing (e.g. Yes, Genesis, Jane, Novalis) but ALL these bands shared the same adventurous spirit and they all played "progressive" music as defined by this site. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 06:15
|
Seems a strange list of bands you have there DP. Some are from the 70's, some are more recent, and at least one is not listed on this site as prog anyway. Why did you choose those particular bands for debate? Even musically, there seems little to connect them. What do you think is common to them?
I am not aware of questions being raised about Can or Neu! for example. Where have you come across their prog credentials being questioned?
What are your own views on their "Progression"?
|
Posted By: (De)progressive
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 06:27
|
I write those bands just for example. I know the differences between them.
Can and Neu! example are given for general krautrock genre, it's definite that they are progressive bands in general at least for me but I just had the felt of giving them as examples.
The reason of this topic is to find about more problematic bands and listen the opinions about them. ------------- ''Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment.'' (Friedrich Nietzsche)
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 10:59
|
Still not sure where you're coming from here DP. There seems to be litle in common between the bands you have chosen. Are you looking for separate debates about each of these bands?
You say that you are sure Can and Neu! are prog bands. Where have you seen it suggested they are not?
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 23:31
| There were a few threads a few weeks ago were Dream Theater Progressiveness was being questioned and debated. As well as Pink Floyd's. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 27 2010 at 23:59
|
I was against Radioghead inclusion when suggested, still don't believe their Prog credentials (for whatever the credentials count) will grant them a position among the icons of Progressive Rock, but my opinion has changed a lot and I wouldn't question their inclusion today, because they took influences from Prog symbols as Pink Floyd, worked them in their own way and released an original and quality product that at least has several characteristics of our beloved genre.
I don't see how Can and Neu! may not be considered Prog.
Don't know or care enough to research about Neurosis or Cult of Luna, so can't give my opinion
Swans is a Post Punk/No Wave band and I don't see why should they be added.
Iván
------------- 
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 05:19
| Can is one of the most progressive bands of prog-history. They were the first to play acid, proto-punk, soundscapes and some of their songs have never aged! They can still be listened to as modern music. I agree with some other bands you mentioned, but Can doesn't deserve a place in this topic. |
Posted By: MaxerJ
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 05:48
|
^ Ivan - Radiohead may not be Prog rock but they are progressive and they do bring a heightened form of music to the masses. ------------- Godspeed, You Bolero Enthusiasts  'Prog is all about leaving home...' - Moshkito
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 08:51
Can is most definitely prog and also a very progressive band. As Easy Livin asked, whoever suggested they aren't?  Radiohead and Muse...it depends on what you define as prog. Do you place more importance on technicality and odd time signatures or form? If it's the latter, they are definitely much closer to what prog is all about than several modern prog bands whose progginess is generally not questioned. In any case, both make progressive music.
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 11:11
|
I add my voice to everyone who says Can is a prog band. We had in the past discussion about the difference between prog and progressive but Can is an example (actually one of the best examples IMO) to a band that is both. ------------- omri |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 11:36
If they are not part of the Progressuive ocj genre...They don't belog here, no matter how progressive (adjective) they are....And that description "they do bring a heightened form of music to the masses", sounds incredibly prog snob even to me, the purpose of Prog is to bring the joy of music to a sector of the population thatwants something different to top 40's, not to enlighten anybody...At the end, It's just Rock & Roll.
But I said I believe they are part of the genre, unlike I thought some years ago, not enough to put them in the level of Yes, Genesis, ELP, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Kansas, Renaisance, Caravan, Magma, etc, but enough to be here.
Iván
-------------
|
MaxerJ wrote:Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 12:23
Ivan, I'm usually a fan of yours, but here you are talking bollox, I'm sorry to say. What is progressive music? IMO it is music that explores new ways and sounds with a new attitude and gives a sh*t to the "laws" or regulations of each genre. Progressive doesn't have to sound like the 70's bands that you list above. If there is a well-known band more interested in "exploring new ways" than Radiohead, please name it. IMO Radiohead are very progressive in their thinking and for that reason must be included in Prog Archives.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: Prog966
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 16:40
| And how about Yngwie J. Malmsteen? He uses a lot of classical influences and compose with classical forms (i mean, Sarabande, Suite, Fugue, i dont really now the name of that). |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 18:49
|
Every genre on this site will have bands that can be seen as questionable as theres no set in stone cast for what prog rock should be, and most bands have at least one track that can be considered an attempt at pop, the trick is deciding how far a band generally goes and in which direction. Naturally this will lead to a few contraversial inclusions. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 19:00
For God's sake...Have you read my post before saying I'm speaking b0ollox???? Maxer XC says Radiohead is not Progressive Rock, but progressive
I say if a band (Any band, not specifically Radiohead) is not Prog (Progressive Rock), then they shouldn't be here but I also say that I believe Radiohead is a Prog band,
So I say Radiohead is Prog, but not in the level of the icoins of the genre...This is my opinion, and you may like it or not, but you can't call it bollocks. BTW: They must not be included here as you say THEY ARE ALREADY HERE!!! So, if you don't want a harsh reply, be careful with the words you use, specially if you didn't understood the post. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 19:19
|
there must be some misunderstanding... whoo... there must be some kind of a mistake... whoooo..
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 20:32
^
Thanks Micky I spewed my drink on my monitor.  ------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: NecronCommander
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 21:49
|
In my opinion, Radiohead is progressive in the sense that they defied the traditional boundaries of music at the time and progressed music into further realms. Ivan's right, they're progressive in a certain sense, but not to the same extent or to a similar sense that aforementioned bands are. Since no one has addressed Neurosis or Cult of Luna: Neurosis definitely fits the bill of progressive. They practically invented the Post Metal genre. They also fit numerous other traditional progressive rock archetypes, like using nontraditional instruments for the genre, experimenting with time signatures and soundscapes, and blending elements of other genres to create something wholly different. Cult of Luna is a fairly straightforward post metal band, a genre that is considered progressive for its nature and purpose, and certain nuances, but CoL has shown a lot of progressiveness in their latest two releases, doing more experimental stuff with their time signatures, texturing, instruments, and atmosphere, so even inside the post metal genre, I would say they are deserving of their progressive title. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 21:50
| More importantly, will it blend? |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 21:56
You are full of memes tonight. |
Posted By: AlexUC
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 22:11
------------- This is not my beautiful house... |
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 01:08
Ferchrissakes, don't get mad! I see, light "dressing-room banter" is obviously not your cup of tea...  So, the conclusion is that Radiohead are progressive, and you think they are not on the level of those 70's bands. Here our opinions differ, as I think Radiohead are musically more adventurous than MOST of the bands you listed. Matter of opinions, and thus open to discussion. My point is, the prog of the 70's doesn't define what prog is. Great music it is, of course, but IMO Gesualdo and Beethoven are as prog as they come, and yet they will never be listed in Prog Archives. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: (De)progressive
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 08:44
|
I forgot to mention them, what about Katatonia, Akercocke, Nevermore and Sunn O)))?
they may not be proggy as the meaning of having progressive rock elements, but their music style is definitely progressive. ------------- ''Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment.'' (Friedrich Nietzsche)
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 12:49
| If you want to discuss bands not listed on this site, the thread should relocate to the general music discussions area. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 13:54
I thought there was significant method to your choices as Krautrock, and Can and Neu! specifically, influenced Radiohead and of course Muse cites Radiohead as an influence... Radiohead, Muse, Neurosis all claim Pink Floyd as an influence, Krautrock was influenced by Floyd (certainly Tangerine Dream was) and Cult of Luna is definitely influenced by Neurosis. Swans was influenced by the post-rock outfit Joy Division, as were, I certianly think, Radiohead and Muse (I know Radiohead has covered Joy Division) and I know that Joy Division was influenced by the Krautrock band Kraftwerk. I think one can draw many similarities between these artists. Venn diagrams would show lots of overlap -- overlaps in styles, approaches, and influences. As for the question itself -- I definitely consider Can and Neu! to be progressive, but whether it's considered Prog proper is a different question. They were part of the Berlin School and Krautrock movement which can be thought of as parallel or tangential to the Prog movement -- progressive rock and Progressive Rock (i.e. Prog) needn't mean the same thing, of course, and of course one can be progressive without being progressive rock, and one can be Prog without being progressive. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 18:02
  and sorry about the monitor... I can relate... if ever I run out of Diet Coke.. and need a fix... I just need to lick my screen thanks to you all here. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 18:03
hahhahahahaha... sh*t.... there is another layer of diet coke for the monitor... NAAAHHHHHH but that is why we love the guy------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 16:32
...so was Duke by Genesis a progressive rock album or a pop album?...
 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 16:38
LOL, I only get mad when my words are changed, I already had problems in other forums because of this.
Of course we can discuss it, opinions must be respected, but I don't believe RADIOHEAD is so adventurous, because even when they blended Progressive elements, they used also the alternative/Indie formula that was not innovative at all on their moment.
Here I strongly disagree, the 70's bands defined Progressive Rock, every later Prog band follow the frames this pioneers created, of course the new ones add something of their own, but they other were the bands that defined the genre.
Now, Carlo Gesualdo in the 1600's and Beethoven in the late 700's early 800's, can be as progressive (with low case because it's an adjective) as you want, I believe the approach of Mussorgski, Cui, Boroidin, Balakirev, etc were as progressive (again with low case), because they broke with the musical status quo pf Europe, but Progressive (with high case because it's a name) Rock (and added to PA) no way,because they don't have the rock component and wrote music several centuries before the genre was born in the late 60's
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: matt_rs
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 16:40
|
Is there any artists who actually admit to being prog? ------------- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Steve-Hackett/123101228589?ref=ts - Steve Hackett answers your questions weekly! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 16:47
|
I've never thought of Can being really Prog. But alot of peolple do aand I have no problem with that. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|