What about Muse??

There's a petition here

...and it's looking very good for Muse.

I think it's unfair to say that Muse are a "rip-off of Radiohead" whether half decent or not - it's only Matt Bellamy's vocals that have any similarities with Radiohead.

Muse's style couldn't be more different - less experimental and more bombastic, with lyrics that are sometimes painfully constructed and almost always rhyme, and classical influenced interludes that quite often work very well and sometimes don't. A bit like ELP really...

I'm not convinced that they're Prog, but I'd happily accept them as Prog related - especially having seen them live.

Muse isn't Prog. Same thing with Radiohead.

Blacksword wrote:

I don't know. What about them? And What about Zeppelin? And What about Queen? And What about David Bowie? And What about Cream? And What about Jefferson Airplane? What about them?!

Here we go again! My band is more prog than your band.

Boring, and pointless.

Perhaps "prog" (progressive rock) is simply a historical term for a sub-genre that long ago outgrew its confines and conventions, and doesn't really exist anymore, except as history or tribute/imitation/nostalgia.

Just a thought.

I believe that this is the real problem: the term has lost almost all meaning/relevance as a means to describe current music. It seems that if it sounds like the old prog, it is not "progressing," but if it sounds new and different, it is, to many, not what they think of as "prog rock." It means different things to each of us, especially across generations.

Is it that big of a problem, really? Listen to the albums here, review the music as MUSIC, above all, and let the admins worry about the inclusion/exclusion of artists. If you MUST lobby, do it in one specifically-dedicated thread (see the "Bands to Ad list").

Perhaps, eventually -- and I mean this in all calm sincerity -- the site will have to change its name, with a less contentious, more embracing & open title. How about (as has been suggested for the genre) "progressive music Archives?"

What do others think? Otherwise, these arguments will never cease, and older members, especially, won't want the site to "grow" if it remains shackled by the confines of capital "P" "Progressive Rock."

"Progressive  rock" is simply a subjective, but loaded, term, and it is at the root of the problem, IMO.

Reasoned responses

Edited by Peter

Forget Muse! Vote FANTOMAS!

Wow, Your'e really pushing this, aren't you?

 

So are Muse more or less prog than say IQ? I love both bands equally but I am very confused about what is considered to be prog or not.IQ have blatantly ripped off Genesis 'Suppers Ready' for their 'Harvest Of Souls'..so that's prog then.Muse are making original music with prog influences..so they are not prog then.Seems daft to me.Perhaps this site should just be for Pink Floyd, King Crimson, ELP,Yes and Gabriel era Genesis or clones of these bands.Nothing else is prog then (?!)

JrKASperov wrote: This discussion in this thread is the reason I don't consider this site to be about prog anymore.

Yes, but you don't think Dark Side of the Moon is prog!

This discussion in this thread is the reason I don't consider this site to be about prog anymore.

Why? They are radio-friendly, and they sell out like hell and all the teenyboppers in Britain loooove them. Period.

Probably because of the occasional uncanny similarities between Thom's voice and Matt's voice