| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
chamberry 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 24 2005
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 9008
|
 Topic: Is Radiohead prog?
Posted: March 10 2007 at 16:17 |
I pretty much agree with ALL of Mike's post. Bravo man. 
|
|
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 10 2007 at 12:18 |
The master of generalization has spoken. 
|
|
|
|
greenback
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 14 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3300
|
Posted: March 10 2007 at 10:58 |
........................................................prog starts here^ 
Edited by greenback - March 10 2007 at 11:01
|
|
[HEADPINS - LINE OF FIRE: THE RECORD HAVING THE MOST POWERFUL GUITAR SOUND IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MUSIC!>
|
|
greenback
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 14 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3300
|
Posted: March 10 2007 at 10:55 |
look at this progression:
alice in chains < our lady peace < radiohead < porcupine tree < pain of salvation < marillion < genesis
|
|
[HEADPINS - LINE OF FIRE: THE RECORD HAVING THE MOST POWERFUL GUITAR SOUND IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MUSIC!>
|
|
laplace
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 06 2005
Location: popupControl();
Status: Offline
Points: 7606
|
Posted: March 10 2007 at 04:36 |
|
yeah, I don't think the "derivativeness" argument holds up around here. people have got the "prog rock is a genre not a movement" point of view solidly stuck in their heads.
and honestly radiohead are just an alt. rock band to me, but I like that they're inspired by krautrock and the use of tape delays and such things. far better and more diverse than most alt. rock bands.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 10 2007 at 04:27 |
|
^ Show me another band that is similar to Radiohead (OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac). Find any? If not, then why call them derivative?
It's not like bands are either completely ground breaking or completely derivative. Of course Radiohead are using techniques that have been used before ... every artist does, without exception. Only very, very rarely does a musician "invent" new techniques, and even then it's not *such* a big deal. Example: Many people like Eddie Van Halen because he "invented" tapping. Then some of those people found out that some artists were already doing that a few years before Eddie showed it to the world. Does that now mean that these people should like their favorite Van Halen albums any less?
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - March 10 2007 at 19:58
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A˛ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: March 10 2007 at 00:11 |
 MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ why the hell do they have to do anything completely new? It's not like Yes or Genesis re-invented the musical wheel. I could say that they were basically ripping off Stravinsky (Yes - Close to the Edge) ... but I'm not. I know much about music - I listen a lot, I play a lot, and I wrote some songs. I know that writing music is always about "ripping off", even if you try to do something completely new you are subconsciously influenced by the music you've been listening to. So why try to "disguise" your influences? |
I don't have a problem with that. My problem is people always making a case for Radiohead by saying they are completely groundbreaking and innovative. I like many artists that are derivative, but I don't tout them as being completely original.
|
|
|
|
Dieu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 26 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 112
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 12:43 |
I gess not, it's not prog in a VDGG or Gentle Giant way (witch I believe those are PURE prog, like the most prog of prog definitions).
But it is art-rock.
|
|
Only sick music makes money today.
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 12:26 |
andu wrote:
ken4musiq wrote:
I guess you know the famous quote, I" don't borrow from anybody, I just steal." |
Picasso, Dali? It stroke me as very familiar to me, but I can't remember who said it. |
Well, it was Stravinsky . . . but now I see he stole that quote from Picasso. :) Ken
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 02:59 |
Damn I'm good 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 02:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 02:32 |
ken4musiq wrote:
I guess you know the famous quote, I" don't borrow from anybody, I just steal." |
Picasso, Dali? It stroke me as very familiar to me, but I can't remember who said it.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 02:19 |
There's another famous quote: "Mediocre artists imitate, good artists steal". I don't think that "originality" exists in modern music, every outstanding achievement is based on established technique and style at least to some extend. That's why I'm looking for the best music, not the most original ... 
|
|
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: March 09 2007 at 01:07 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ why the hell do they have to do anything completely new? It's not like Yes or Genesis re-invented the musical wheel. I could say that they were basically ripping off Stravinsky (Yes - Close to the Edge) ... but I'm not. I know much about music - I listen a lot, I play a lot, and I wrote some songs. I know that writing music is always about "ripping off", even if you try to do something completely new you are subconsciously influenced by the music you've been listening to. So why try to "disguise" your influences?
|
Speaking of Stravinsky, I guess you know the famous quote, I" don't borrow from anybody, I just steal." Your post struck me because I think that we look at certain music and say that it is original; but when we know the influences then we say, "oh, the just sound's like . . "People said that ELP and Yes back in the day, that they just ripped
of classical music. Originality is a very modern concept and theft is a
long standing musical tradition. :) People say that about music today, that there is really nothing new; everybody is just copying. I think it is because we have been so spoon fed the same music for so long that people just know it now when they hear it.
Edited by ken4musiq - March 09 2007 at 01:08
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 07 2007 at 01:37 |
|
^ why the hell do they have to do anything completely new? It's not like Yes or Genesis re-invented the musical wheel. I could say that they were basically ripping off Stravinsky (Yes - Close to the Edge) ... but I'm not. I know much about music - I listen a lot, I play a lot, and I wrote some songs. I know that writing music is always about "ripping off", even if you try to do something completely new you are subconsciously influenced by the music you've been listening to. So why try to "disguise" your influences?
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A˛ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: March 06 2007 at 14:02 |
|
Personally, I don't care if they are prog or not. Enough people think they are to have them here. That has nothing to do with the quality of the music. There are plenty of full on prog bands here that aren't especially good.
My problem is how people are always saying how innovative, and groundbreaking Radiohead are. I have never heard them do anthing completely new. There may have been steps forward for the band, but they didn't create any new musical sounds. I checked out "Kid A" and "O.K. Computer" because friends were making extravagant claims. All I heard was the influence of other, much better music.
Edited by bhikkhu - March 06 2007 at 14:02
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 06 2007 at 13:40 |
|
^ we're both expressing opinions, no problem at all.
I just think that the spirit of prog is not necessarily connected to the sound of prog. If a current band (with members being in their 20s) decides to play "retro" prog (like Wobbler, for example) we can argue about whether they have the "spirit" of the 70s ... I think that while it may sound closer to classic prog, other bands may be closer to what the classic bands did to the sound of classic (non-prog) bands in the 70s. In my previous post I did not mean "evolution" and "progression" in the sense that bands have to constantly change their style ... I meant that they should strive to make more sophisticated music which stands out in several aspects (see Certif1ed's prog criteria) compared to the band's non-prog peers.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - March 06 2007 at 13:41
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 06 2007 at 13:30 |
CaptainWafflos wrote:
Ivan,
Sorry if I offended in any way. I don't feel that your position is necessarily wrong, nor do I disagree with you defending it. If anything, I feel that including anything inventive on this web site doesn't hold to the strict, original conception of prog, but as I stated in my post, I think it's too late to back on this.
No, not offended at all, simply leaving clear I'm not alienate or angry, just worried for the constant addition that in my opinion, the opinion od good number of members of Prog Archives (Just read the posts and polls) and the opinion of other sites that don't include them, are not part of the Progressive Rock Genre
As far as prog losing its identity, I'd say the argument is pretty much moot. There will always be musicians that hold classic '70s prog in high esteem, such as Anglagard, Wobbler, and so on. Some of these bands even go as far as to emulate their styles as much as possible. I don't think these musicians choose to do this because those who influenced them are prog but rather because those who influenced them composed great music.
But they are Prog beyond any doubt, not a single person has questioned Anglagard ever, but still people questions the inclusion of Radiohead, probably is the only band that received an official petition to delete them fromour database and still a lot of time after their inclusion, people continues starting posts that place doubts of their Prog Rock status....Something may be wrong, becaise the site is almost divided uin two halves, this rarely happens with a band that is not in Prog Related.
I use alienate in the sense that continued additions of bands that don't follow the traditional idea of what prog is will probably irk you, similar to how there used to be constant complaints about how prog metal threads were dominating this forum.
I really don't like to read petititoions for the inclusion of bands like Coldplay, Al Stewart, Toto, etc that I don't copnsider Prog at all and bands like Radiohead that IMHO are not more than Prog Related.
But as I said, it's not my call, the Art Rock team has spoken loud and clearly and as I said before I respect their opinion, but don't ask me to agree, because I believe we are all allowed to keep our opinions.
BTW, I just thought I should point this out: there are other perspectives of prog outside the two I listed, but I think these are overwhelmingly the most popular. There will be certain sects that include some prog metal, post rock, etc.
Sects???? What is this a cult?
I see very few people that questions Prog Metal as a whole, maybe they have problems with some bands and never read anything against Post Rock, but I keep reading every once in a while long threads about Radiohead.
I'm going to get some sleep now. I'll review this thread in the morning!
Good Night.
|
Seems I'm the official spokesman, because despite various opinions I'm the one who everybody questions, but no problem.
Andu wrote:
|
... Then they did Kid-A and again moved forward towards something new. I was a fan of their music in the 90s (which is quite precisely described as a transition from grunge to alternative) and of all the alternative spectrum (Supergrass, Blur, Pulp, Suede, Doves, etc.), and when Kid-A came out, I felt it as something new that I couldn't understand, define and like. Here it's called prog(ressive)... Why not?
May be progressive because it evolved, but IHO and the opinion of almost 50% of the members of this site (According to polls and threads) not Progressive Rock.
Don't worry... Prog had at least three major identity changes, by including Neo, Avant and Post-Rock, and the essence of it still stands. On another hand, that's because of the fans and people like you - your reticence, critical faculty and constructive attitude is what keeps prog on the right path... So keep doin' what you're doin', neither side is fighting a wrong war here. 
Maybe because those new sub-genres (Not identity changes, at all, only additions because change implies that the previous sound vanishes and soe of the traditional suib-genres are healthier than ever after the 70's) keep the identity.
But again, accordoing to a signifixant part of the members (Who's opinions are as valiuable as any ones), Radiohead is simply not Prog, i don't go that far, I believe they are Prog Related.
|
There goes the third:
Mike wrote:
| I don't think that it's possible for current bands to preserve the spirit of classic prog and at the same time stick closely by the typical style of the classic bands. Prog is about a certain style, but it's also about evolving and progressing in the literal sense ... and after 30 years it would be really strange if current prog sounded anything like Genesis (or any other classic band). I'd even say that it should definitely sound completely different! |
Progressive Rock doesn't imply evolution necesarilly, I believe that is clear, I don't believe it has to sound exactly as in the 70's, I even added bands that don't sound remotely like the 70's (after a poll with no objections) for example Miranda Sex Garden sounds closer to Folk meets Post Rock, but I felt the Prog spirit exists, so I simply added them.
SAnd yes, it's possible for curent bands to keep alive part of the 70's spirits, we keep adding bands that send us their music, kids of 20 or 21 years who are playing traditional Symphonic or Neo Prog, so it's a fallacy to say the spirit is not alive still.
But again and for fourth toime, nothing can be done Radiohead are here to stay I know it, but again for 100th time, I believe OI'm allowed to keep my opinion and express it with freedom.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 06 2007 at 13:45
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21367
|
Posted: March 06 2007 at 07:27 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I'm not alienated, I'm worried that if Prog looses it's identity as Punk did blending with Pop glam and New Wave bands what lead to their death, and I care a lot for Prog I spent almost three decades of my life following it and trying to make it survive. |
I don't think that it's possible for current bands to preserve the spirit of classic prog and at the same time stick closely with the typical style of the classic bands. Prog is about a certain style, but it's also about evolving and progressing in the literal sense ... and after 30 years it would be really strange if current prog sounded anything like Genesis (or any other classic band). I'd even say that it should definitely sound completely different! 
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - March 06 2007 at 13:21
|
|
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: March 06 2007 at 07:18 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Fight Club wrote:
Radiohead was a step in evolution with modern music, but doesn't stick to the expected progressive rock sound. |
Yes, they evolved into something called Alternative Rock and Indie.
... Then they did Kid-A and again moved forward towards something new. I was a fan of their music in the 90s (which is quite precisely described as a transition from grunge to alternative) and of all the alternative spectrum (Supergrass, Blur, Pulp, Suede, Doves, etc.), and when Kid-A came out, I felt it as something new that I couldn't understand, define and like. Here it's called prog(ressive)... Why not?
I'm not alienated, I'm worried that if Prog looses it's identity as Punk did blending with Pop glam and New Wave bands what lead to their death, and I care a lot for Prog I spent almost three decades of my life following it and trying to make it survive.
Don't worry... Prog had at least three major identity changes, by including Neo, Avant and Post-Rock, and the essence of it still stands. On another hand, that's because of the fans and people like you - your reticence, critical faculty and constructive attitude is what keeps prog on the right path... So keep doin' what you're doin', neither side is fighting a wrong war here.
Iván |
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is Radiohead prog?
