Is Radiohead prog?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Captain Wafflos wrote: This has increasingly alienated people like Ivan who tend to hold most to the second definition.   Why alienated? Because I defend mmy position with passion?   Call me conservative if you want, even purist, I accept it, I'm not ashamed of it , by the contrary I'm proud, even stubborn, butI believe keeping a safe distence of mainstrean is what has saved Prog from being history like Punk, Disco, New Wave and New Age..   I'm not alienated, I'm worried that if Prog looses it's identity as Punk did blending with Pop glam and New Wave bands what lead to their death, and I care a lot for Prog I spent almost three decades of my life following it and trying to make it survive.   Now every band somebody here likes has to be at least Prog Related, that's absurd, there are great bands outside Prog so´what's the problem if one of us likes another genre?

Ivan,

Sorry if I offended in any way. I don't feel that your position is necessarily wrong, nor do I disagree with you defending it. If anything, I feel that including anything inventive on this web site doesn't hold to the strict, original conception of prog, but as I stated in my post, I think it's too late to back on this.

As far as prog losing its identity, I'd say the argument is pretty much moot. There will always be musicians that hold classic '70s prog in high esteem, such as Anglagard, Wobbler, and so on. Some of these bands even go as far as to emulate their styles as much as possible. I don't think these musicians choose to do this because those who influenced them are prog but rather because those who influenced them composed great music.

I use alienate in the sense that continued additions of bands that don't follow the traditional idea of what prog is will probably irk you, similar to how there used to be constant complaints about how prog metal threads were dominating this forum.

BTW, I just thought I should point this out: there are other perspectives of prog outside the two I listed, but I think these are overwhelmingly the most popular. There will be certain sects that include some prog metal, post rock, etc.

I'm going to get some sleep now. I'll review this thread in the morning!

Heh, as a fan of "classic" prog bands (read Yes, Genesis, GG, etc...) and as someone who has read no posts, just the title of this thread I'll answer:

Is Radiohead prog?

O god yeah. A hundered times yeah. I mean, just listen to them. You may not like what you hear, but you cant argue that here is a band that is turning pop/rock music conventions on their ear, and isnt that the definition of prog rock?

If ya disagree, I humbly ask you to look up the word progressive in the dictionary.

Prog rock isnt a stodgy music form for peeps in spangly capes and mellotrons, its an ever, dare I say "progressing" form of rock in which boundaries are challenged and expectations confounded.

Take THAT, establishment.

Ghandi 2 wrote: I agree, although your post is very confusing, Captain. You never actually gave the second definition.   I also don't think they're nearly as inventive as people claim either. Kid A sounds a lot like the combination of various branches of '90s electronica...And I don't find it very dull and flat. It's not worth the effort it takes to like it because the huge payoff never really comes, like with some other difficult bands.

Heheh, good point. I wrote this post a bit rushedly; I'll go back and modify the second paragraph to elaborate a bit more.

The inherent dilemma to the debate of what defines a band as worthy of inclusion on ProgArchives stems from the fact that there are two definitions of progressive rock. The first, and most sensible IMO considering the name, includes bands that contibute to the world of inventive music. '70s giants like Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson obviously did much to advance music as a whole, but so have more recent bands like Talk Talk, Radiohead, and other bands that create a dichotomy in this site's userbase in regards to the question of their inclusion. For whatever reason, most established genres like jazz and classical have escaped the adjective "progressive," perhaps because these genres themselves are almost inherently progressive.

The other definition includes the aforementioned '70s bands in addition to other genres of music that the owners and collaborators of this site have deemed inventive/progressive/avant-garde/new. Twenty years ago, no one in their right mind would have thought to put something as distinct as Sigur Ros in the same genre as Gentle Giant or Van Der Graaf Generator.

I think that ProgArchives at first began as a web site adhering only to the second definition, but it has gradually come to embrace the first. This has increasingly alienated people like Ivan who tend to hold most to the second definition.

It's interesting that Kayo Dot's album was picked for best album of 2006 because I think his comments on his own music reflects this web site's general mentality (which is in part proven by the choice of this album in the first place) more than any other definition I've encountered: "I would even go so far as to say that this is the type of audience that we are most interested in reaching; not rock fans, classical fans, jazz fans, metal fans... but rather, fans of new music."

But the question still stands: to continue to cater to adherents of the second definition or instead to the growing majority of this site that now accepts both definitions?

Honestly, the first definition I provided is completely useless in terms of describing music. Eventually, in many millenia when the juggernaut that will be ProgArchives overtakes what is now allmusic.com, there will be so many inventive bands and other bands the emulate them (such as what has been done with post-rock) that virtually every band in existence could be classified as progressive. Under the first definition of progressive rock, every band since the late '60s that has done something to add more colors to the musical palette could logically be included on this web site.

But while the first definition of progressive rock is useless for pigeonholing bands into a given classification in terms of their actual sound, it obviously caters to much of this web site's user base: those of us who, as Toby Driver describes, are looking for new music.

So I guess the question of whether Radiohead is prog depends on one's definition of progressive music (although I don't think they're nearly as inventive as most of this web site apparently does, ke ke~)


Edited by CaptainWafflos - March 06 2007 at 00:29

Fight Club wrote: Angeldust wrote: I've lost my faith in humanity really.Don't get me wrong(i'm sure you will though) radiohead is much more prog than bands such as Flower Kings for example.Why's that?They're really pushing the envelope,creating marvelous ,experimental music based on rock (but not always) structures.They progress with each album , and even though they're not great players , they sure know how to play every note they think of..They're exceptional composers and they never created safe,easy music (apart from Pablo honey).Bands that copy the 70s prog sound nowadays, are not progressive for me since they never evolve and never create something new .I'm not saying that it's bad when you do it.But in my opinion that's the starting point and you have to draw inspiration from it .When you produce that sound for yourself that's fine , just don't say that you're a pioneer  !   Exactly hence the actual meaning of progressive regardless of the sound most prog buffs are used to hearing.

Angeldust wrote: I've lost my faith in humanity really.Don't get me wrong(i'm sure you will though) radiohead is much more prog than bands such as Flower Kings for example.Why's that?They're really pushing the envelope,creating marvelous ,experimental music based on rock (but not always) structures.They progress with each album , and even though they're not great players , they sure know how to play every note they think of..They're exceptional composers and they never created safe,easy music (apart from Pablo honey).Bands that copy the 70s prog sound nowadays, are not progressive for me since they never evolve and never create something new .I'm not saying that it's bad when you do it.But in my opinion that's the starting point and you have to draw inspiration from it .When you produce that sound for yourself that's fine , just don't say that you're a pioneer  !

No.  Mainstream Rock. 

^ wow, could you be any more elaborative?

And if Micky gives you clappies you know you're doing things right. 

Its like I said on thsi thread. Radiohead are prog, they try new ideas, they never stand still to be labeled whilst at the same time use things withoin their sound that hint back to 70's/early80's prog. Isn't that one reason why we love prog, because the bands never hung around long enough in a particular genre to be labeled or dabbled with differnt genres within the frame work of prog rock?