Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Topic: Bands that aren't prog, but are also great Posted: August 17 2010 at 13:13
harmonium.ro wrote:
I think I gave No Line On The Horizon a listen back when it came out and, while I appreciated the intent (style, production, etc.), I had a major problem with Bono's voice. I'm not sure whether I should try to revive my interest in them...
It does seem to be fading a bit, but I didn't have an overt problem with it.
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: August 17 2010 at 13:08
I think I gave No Line On The Horizon a listen back when it came out and, while I appreciated the intent (style, production, etc.), I had a major problem with Bono's voice. I'm not sure whether I should try to revive my interest in them...
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: August 17 2010 at 12:33
harmonium.ro wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
CinemaZebra wrote:
No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.
I disagree intensely with this. U2 didn't start to go bad until 1997.
Do you mean before or after POP? I never got to listen to POP in it's entirety, but I've always loved the singles coming from it.
After that yeah, I stopped caring.
Staring at the Sun is a good song, if overly routine, and Discotheque it alright, but here the band ran out of really good ideas and went too far into adult contemporary as well as let the image outweigh the quality of the music.
You should listen to No Line on the Horizon if you have not yet. It doesn't totally redeem the band, but it has a great Unforgettable Fire kind of production, as well as a rather experimental (for that band at this stage of their career) palette of sounds and songwriting techniques. There are a couple All You Can't leave Behind-esque Modern Rock Top 40 kind of songs, but the change of pace on Side B makes up for it. "Cedars of Lebanon." Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaah.
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:29
^I've recently been getting into some hip hop myself (I think, not sure if what I've been listening to can be defined as hip hop)!! A friend made me a mix CD with some stuff by Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five, The Sugarhill Gang, A Tribe Called Quest and some other groups on it, all of which I've immensely enjoyed.
As far as bands who aren't progressive, but still great go, here are my favourites:
This Town Needs Guns American Football I Would Set Myself On Fire For You Phoenix The xx A Genuine Freakshow Death Cab For Cutie Vampire Weekend Foals Band Of Horses
Joined: July 31 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5964
Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:25
Textbook wrote:
Trouserpress: I know. It's even becoming socially acceptable to mention hip-hop, if only in this forum, though there are still a few members who, predictable as the tides yet twice as tedious, march into any rap thread and go "I DON'T LIKE A GENRE I'VE NEVER LISTENED TO. PS I AM OPEN-MINDED."
Also, Thus:Owls. I totally forgot to mention them. They're awesome.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: August 17 2010 at 05:47
Trouserpress: I know. It's even becoming socially acceptable to mention hip-hop, if only in this forum, though there are still a few members who, predictable as the tides yet twice as tedious, march into any rap thread and go "I DON'T LIKE A GENRE I'VE NEVER LISTENED TO. PS I AM OPEN-MINDED."
Joined: July 02 2009
Location: The Woods
Status: Offline
Points: 1588
Posted: August 17 2010 at 05:27
The Kinks
Swans
Cream
Derek & the Dominos
The Allman Brothers Band 16 Horsepower Dire Straits In Gowan Ring Judas Priest Katatonia Rome The Clash CSN&Y Buffalo Springfield Fleetwood Mac REM And many more...
Edited by Zebedee - August 17 2010 at 05:29
Friendship is like wetting your pants: everyone can see it, but only you can feel its warmth.
Joined: October 15 2009
Location: Slovenia
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Posted: August 17 2010 at 05:06
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
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.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.
I... actually... agree with you. And about the indie part two. Wow.
Joined: July 31 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5964
Posted: August 17 2010 at 04:11
Random selection of non-prog I've been listening to recently, sub-divided into broad categories for easy reference:
Indie/Electronic/Noise Max Tundra Everything Everything Simon Bookish Deerhoof Melt-Banana Silvery Animal Collective
The Chap
Jazz/Funk Eric Dolphy
Funkadelic
Herbie Hancock
Sun Ra
Folk Linda Perhacs Arch Garrison Bridget St John Pentangle
Post-Punk Magazine
The Pop Group
Throbbing Gristle
Diagram Brothers
Half Man Half Biscuit
Public Image Ltd
There was a time on this forum where it seemed almost controversial to suggest there might actually be more good non-prog artists out there than prog ones. I'm glad those days are over.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: August 17 2010 at 00:02
Re: the alternative controversy let's forget about U2 and perhaps look at Green Day. Now Green Day actually are a band who really once were alternative, yet are now one of the most prominent pillars of mainstream rock. Are they still alternative? What is the precise point that it stopped?
I think the technical definition of alternative is bands on a major label that don't sound like they're on a major label, mainstream indie if you will.
Joined: September 17 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Posted: August 16 2010 at 23:20
To start with...
The Strokes The Flaming Lips The Shins Bela Fleck and the Flecktones Dead Weather Dave Matthews Band Massive Attack The National Bon Iver Led Zeppelin The Never Wu-Tang Clan Cannibal Ox Rage Against the Machine Ratatat RJD2 Soundgarden Alterbridge Sufjan Stevens 2pac UNKLE The Sound Providers Queens of the Stone Age (of course) Them Crooked Vultures Noah and the Whale MGMT Lupe Fiasco Fredrick Chopin Sergei Rachmaninoff Blue Sky Black Death Jedi Mind Tricks Herbie Hancock Miles Davis John Coltrane Joni Mitchell Grateful Dead Guns 'n Roses Guess Who Derek and the Dominos The Eagles Eric Clapton Deltron 3030 Coldplay U2 At the Drive-In Avett Brothers Black Keys Cream
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: August 16 2010 at 22:08
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
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.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.
Alternative indicates a lot about the actual music, you just have to ask yourself what makes Radiohead, Joy Division, The Verve, Franz Ferdinand (fill in with any major alternative bands that you know) etc. special in sound and music. Of course it's possible to have a scenario when someone doesn't know any alternative rock music so then he can't relate and therefore the word "alternative" doesn't say anything by itself, but that's exactly the way all descriptors work: they don't say anything as a word. Just the same, classical, popular of mediaeval can't tell you anything about the music if you've never heard any classical, popular or mediaeval music, ever.
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:59
TheGazzardian 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.
I can think of a couple other genres whose meaning have expanded far beyond the word that originally described them. Indie ... and progressive.
Oh jesus, indie is just as idiotic as alternative. Again, the name derives from the status of the music within the marketplace. It says nothing about a sound or musical approach, unlike progressive.
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:58
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
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.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8763
Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:54
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.
I can think of a couple other genres whose meaning have expanded far beyond the word that originally described them. Indie ... and progressive.
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:51
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
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.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:44
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
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.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:41
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
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.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.357 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Bands that aren't prog, but are also great
Topic Options
harmonium.ro wrote:
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. 
