Bands that aren't prog, but are also great

harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'. Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything. The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.

Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'. Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.

The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.

Curtis Mayfield

CinemaZebra wrote: No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.

Everything up the first three tracks of Joshua Tree is a logical continuation of what they'd been up to since 1979. After that... god, I still have no way to reconcile their early works to the junk they've been selling ever since.

Grunge eventually gained some musical characteristics that made a form of prog we listen to today.  But you probably hate it. 

Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.

Textbook wrote: U2 are not alternative sorry. They're about as vanilla as they get. Oh I know all the reviewers always go on about the brave new experimental sound they're trying on whatever album is the most recent at time of writing but it's a load of cobblers. U2 are plain janes.   And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.

U2 are not alternative sorry. They're about as vanilla as they get. Oh I know all the reviewers always go on about the brave new experimental sound they're trying on whatever album is the most recent at time of writing but it's a load of cobblers. U2 are plain janes.

 

And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: U2, the world's biggest selling band, is "alternative"? What the hell...?

Far too many.  I will keep out jazz proper and stick to rock/pop/funk:

Edited by rogerthat - August 16 2010 at 21:13