Pseudo Prog (poll)

Black Mog wrote: humm... i think someone dont read the title topic of this pool... The pool concern the band YOU like the best and not the band that is the most progressive... so i think people should vote in this way.

I won't vote here, because I don't agree with the initial assumption that these bands are just "Pseudo Prog". Instead I'm participating in the debate about the progressiveness of these bands.

Prog isn't dead. Many current bands are doing the same thing that the prog bands of the 70s did - trying to make more sophisticated music than the usual mainstream bands. Many of these bands are firmly rooted in Rock, others in Metal ... and I don't understand why these bands should be treated differently than those of the past. And because the situation today is much different from that of the 70s, of course the music of these new prog bands differs from the classic bands.

Some modern bands are trying to revive the 70s and sound very similar to them (Wobbler), others slightly moedrnized the sound (TFK, DB, Echolyn). And then some are rooted in genres derived from Rock music which didn't exist back then, such as modern metal, alternative rock or modern electronic. And these bands are causing the problem. They sound very different to the old bands, yet they apply the same principles and their base genres are related to rock - with the exception of electronic, which is (and always has been) an exception.

The bottom line: There's plenty of prog today, but you'll only recognize it if you have the same kind of open mind that the prog fans had in the 70s. Simply applying the criteria of the 70s won't work, and doesn't do justice to the spirit of prog.

Peter wrote: What is "prog?" I find Tool and TMV very irritating/painful, and Radiohead haven't really grabbed me yet.

 

With the exception of discussions about the inclusion of such groups like Triumph and Muse, I think that debates about who is more or less prog are inocuous. I know, this is a prog website, but the fact that a band doesn't fit in the prog definition (which is a subgenre of rock'n'roll - we cant' forget it) doesn't mean that this band is awfull or minor. This kind of apreciation is tipical of some prog lovers, which has generated a forum about the pedantism atributed to us.

This said, I must say that I don't consider any contemporary band as being prog, because this genre is dead. We can observe elements of it in a large amount of groups (e.g. in the self-described "prog metal"), but the prog rock movement per se is over. The undergound movement that try to ressurrect it  create a lot of good music, but to call it prog is very delicate. Groups like Finisterre fits very well in the italian prog category, but what they made is just the classic italian prog sound, without adding anything new. Other bands, like Thinking Plague, try to create a different perspective of pop music, but if all groups that try to do this should be called prog, we will just to extend the definition of this subgenre to an extension larger than jazz.

This is a very controversial topic, and I know I'll receive a lot of stones. But my main idea is: we don't need to commit suicide if a group that we like isn't prog. Prog isn't everything in the world of music; there is a lot of other musical genres as good as it, although different.

silentman wrote: You are 39 years old you and you still behave like a child.

Such unsubtle comments are uncalled for, the guy has his opinions about these things. You don't have to agree, but instead of being bloody rude, you could  indicate the error of his ways and provide some explanation.

^mmm, still, even with all this "behind the scenes" talk about Tool, they still sound like an Alt/Metal type band to me. There's nothing wrong with that and I quite like them but they have never sounded as unquie to me as they do to some others.
I also quite like TMV & Porcupine Tree but...
If by some cruel freak these four bands were involved in a plane crash and only one could survive then I hope it would be Radiohead




Edited by krusty

The only one of those four I'm not so keen on is Radiohead (although Amnesiac and Kid A are pretty good) and I'd describe all of them as progressive.

TMV are my curent favourites off that list.

s1ipp3ry wrote: erlenst wrote: s1ipp3ry wrote: King of Loss wrote: Why aren't these bands Prog? Please state your reason, person with a weird name. Theres something in each of their sounds that falls into more the alternative rock genre than Progressive rock genre in my opinion ... I grew up listening to the old Prog titans and I am looking for the same synergy, combined talent, focus,  raw energy, serenity & fusion and above all else well written songs  the older prog bands could provide (before samples and computers played such a big  part) I don`t feel I have to justify myself to you .. but believe me I know my $hit .   Ok, then, but can you please explain why you desperately need to have a completely different definition of 'progressive' than the rest of the world ? so you feel you can talk for the rest of the world do you ? ..

"Alternative" is just another name for "prog", in my opinion.


Edited by BaldFriede

urris wrote: hate radiohead   urris

why?? 

To me it's clear: Mars Volta and Porcupine Tree are two really good and innovative prog bands.  Radiohead is also very good and original, but their songs nerver go over 6 minutes.  They don't give them the chance to explore enough, in my opinion.  And I really don't like Tool, and I don't even consider them prog.  I think they sound more like hard-rock alternative...

TheProgtologist wrote: Moatilliatta wrote: All of those bands are undoubtedly prog.

yeah i'm sure they are all prog in their own rights...explain yourself? anyways i voted for the mars volta before i saw the opener-comment...i shouldn't have voted, for none of these bands are "pseudo-prog"...but hey...