Why do Indie bands consider themselves pr

ProgBagel wrote: I know what you mean...there just bands that suck and just try to be different....plain and simple.

That's mean.

Why can't indie, punk or emo bands be labeled prog? If some jazz rock artists, metal, folk, and electronic artists can be labeled prog, why can't they do the same? I've heard modern bands that sound like those 3 "genres" and still have prog rock qualities in their music.

Senseless generalization, that's all I see when reading the first post.

I don't know. Whenever I hear a band that is considered indie, it seems to have a very irritating simplicity and sound that I just can't see being called prog at all. The Arcade Fire, for example. When the same chords are being played throughout the whole song with no change... yeah.

Ty1020 wrote: Since when were either of those bands considered indie, though? Radiohead is maybe close with their "alternative rock" label, but Coldplay is the very definition of a major label MTV radio-friendly pop-rock band.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 10 2007 at 02:00

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Easy, Radiohead had huge success among Indie/alternative fans and Progheads (they have elements of both even when IMHO barely Prog), Coldplay (with less arguments) is considered Prog by some people, so why not follow a succesful formula and double your potential audience?   Iván

Since when were either of those bands considered indie, though? Radiohead is maybe close with their "alternative rock" label, but Coldplay is the very definition of a major label MTV radio-friendly pop-rock band.

I think the problem here is that "indie" is far too indescript a label, and is really not a genre. Actually, I'd be interested in hearing specific examples of the bands the original poster was talking about, just so we can all be on the same page here, because obviously many of us seem to have differing ideas of what this music is in the first place.

Still, I think most people here have the wrong idea. Many (if not most) of the bands who label themselves "Progressive" on Myspace haven't even heard of Prog Rock before, and in doing so have no intention of associating themselves (or attracting audiences from) a genre they don't even know exists. Rather, based on the genres available to bands on the site, it's a simple way of saying "We play a certain type of music, but we have other influences and try to do something different once in a while, too." Of course, in many cases, the bands STILL don't bring anything original, and the label is just there to make them look smart, but I want to stress that in most of those cases, it has nothing to do with trying to be "prog," per se.

On the other hand, I'd be happy to provide a list of "indie" bands who do exhibit progressive tendencies, many of whom could be included on this website, and many others who already are. People tend to be too black-and-white when it comes to genres; a bit of open-mindedness never hurt anybody, and those of you who bring such insight to this thread as "indie sucks" are surely missing out on a diverse range of great bands.

Easy, Radiohead had huge success among Indie/alternative fans and Progheads (they have elements of both even when IMHO barely Prog), Coldplay (with less arguments) is considered Prog by some people, so why not follow a succesful formula and double your potential audience?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 10 2007 at 01:03

What I don't understand is why a band would want to mislabel themselves. To draw on other audiences? Which audiences are gonna be interested in something they don't care for and were duped into listening to..?





Edited by Atavachron - August 10 2007 at 00:50

remember that prog-rock = good rock is a FALSE statement... prog-rock is just some... special kind of rock (there are like 1089474899 threads about what prog-rock is so I won't start another one).

unicorn coffee wrote: The easy answer is that myspace's given genres dont give you many choices, and the ones they do, nobody uses-- so it's quite difficult to describe a post-rock band for instance, and the band may end up using the term "progressive"

activetopics wrote: I was browsing Myspace music for  progressive bands and what came up with was frightening; many of the bands were emo, indie, punk, or a combination of the three (as if there were a difference). My question to everybody out there is, how in the Hell do these idiots consider their music to be in the progressive vein at ALL?! It all sounds the same...

Do you care that much about corporate labels? Does a punk band that progresses punk qualify as progressive? If it was in the original purpose of the term very much so. The term has changed though from a description of a movement to an elitist badge of honer that sites one form of "progression" as best and disregaurds the rest.

Nobody is realy sure what progressive actualy means as it is tailored to fit the users agenda. What makes it worse is is not a very good term to describe a genre (not to mention it is historically inconsistent with how we traditionally describe genres of music).

If you take just the progressive rock era, yes there were a lot of bands that did "progress" rock; yet there were many others (or even the same bands) that "regressed" rock in what others view as more important areas. Some "prog" bands were really emotionaly infintile compared to bands in other genres. Why is not singer/songwriter rock progressive as they progressed lyrical depth and conceptual depth beyond anything in rock before. Like I said though it is a bad term, and very subjective to boot.