Regressive archives???

Well I too think that groups like The Who, The Doors and Led Zeppelin aren't prog, although we gotta admit, not only they did great music, but they had in some tracks (the doors, Lizard King) and in some albums (The Who, Quadrophenia) prog ideas in the mix, therefore I admit they're adittion, but even so we gotta start thinking in searching more nowadays groups that are everyday appearing in the music scene and that are making progressive music, we gotta find them, instead of adding the who, cause one of these days we might put here Beach Boys as well. 

while I think Genesis "progression" to more poppy material was entirely natural (after all, they had pop leanings on every single album), I think Yes was trying very hard to be relevant.  After all, the Rabin Yes was not even Yes until Anderson joined late in game. 

But regardless of that, I don't like 80's and 90's Genesis.  It's true that Yes has become more of a tribute band to themselves (70's material) than anything else, but they are all 60 years old now!  I think they are entitled to falling back on their past greatness, especially since they can still pull it off pretty well.

But hey, anyone is entitled to their opinion, and certainly there are people here that like 90125 and Invisible Touch.

(I will say that I'm with tszirmay on bands like The Who and the Doors being included here..........................I like them but I just don't think they are "prog" in any sense.......though I came around to the idea that Zeppelin could be proto prog.......even then I think including these bands was a mistake)

schizoid_man77 wrote: I cant agree at all with you.   We give 90125, calling all stations, holidays in eden bad ratings because...   It's not prog!

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 29 2007 at 20:52

schizoid_man77 wrote: I cant agree at all with you.   We give 90125, calling all stations, holidays in eden bad ratings because...   It's not prog!

There's a much better and more reason to rate them lowly. They are not good. Here's the thing; I don't care if a band changes its sound, even radically. What I do care about is when a band sacrifices its musical vision and integrity in order to do so. Genesis and Yes didn't change their sound due to a fit of experimentation, they changed their sound because they were afraid punk was going to kill them. The real problem was nopt the poppy sounds of those albums, it is the atrocious lyrics that lack any of the depth or even whimsy of early prog.

Edited by 1800iareyay - July 29 2007 at 19:15

Rocktopus wrote: Its when progbands tries to become more accessible they become unlistenable to me. Then I'd much rather choose listening to real popgroups like ABBA or The Carpenters. .

Exactly how i feel about it.

I cant agree at all with you.

Easy Livin wrote: Can I ask Wanorak, is it just coincidence that you posted this one the same day as Billy Sherwood introduced himself to the site?

There is a lot of great prog that came after the classic period. Great music is being made right now. However, I disagree with every example you gave.

Can I ask Wanorak, is it just coincidence that you posted this one the same day as Billy Sherwood introduced himself to the site?

Is it regressive thinking Trespass, Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot and Selling England by the Pound generally are far superior to all the other Genesis albums?