Coheed and Cambria

definitely, no doubt about it. i've been listening to their latest album almost non-stop lately and it is DEFINITELY prog.

eh... They're really in the margins as far as progressiveness goes.  The only things they really have in common with prog rock  are:
1.  High vocals
2.  Long song/album titles
3.  Interesting concepts

However, the music itself is barely progressive, if at all.  Also, they just don't take themselves seriously enough.  There is very little humor in their music, yet they make videos so cheesy and lame that they cant possibly be serious.  I love the idea of a several albums tying together one concept, but I think they're trying too hard not to alienate the pop/emo crowd by being cheesy and goofy instead of presenting themselves as a serious progressive band and letting their actual music reflect the intense lyrical content. 

and once again.... proggy != prog.

GoldenSpiral wrote: eh... They're really in the margins as far as progressiveness goes.  The only things they really have in common with prog rock  are: 1.  High vocals 2.  Long song/album titles 3.  Interesting concepts However, the music itself is barely progressive, if at all.  Also, they just don't take themselves seriously enough.  There is very little humor in their music, yet they make videos so cheesy and lame that they cant possibly be serious.  I love the idea of a several albums tying together one concept, but I think they're trying too hard not to alienate the pop/emo crowd by being cheesy and goofy instead of presenting themselves as a serious progressive band and letting their actual music reflect the intense lyrical content.  and once again.... proggy != prog.

I answered no,btw.

They don't sound any more complex than My Chemical Romance in my opinion

Stop judging them by their singles. Is "Closer to the Heart" prog? No, no its not. Is "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe?") No, it's not either. Do you judge Genesis and Rush by their hits? Then stop picking on Coheed.

They don't take themselves serious enough? WHAT? Ohhhh! I guess thats you judging by their ONE VIDEO again. Don't vote if you've only heard one song.

The Miracle wrote: Violenza wrote: They don't sound any more complex than My Chemical Romance in my opinion yep.

from the song i have heard they were awful absolutely awful

but i will be open minded could you recomend some of there progier stuff

 

At the very least, they should be included as "Prog Influenced".

One of my own personal criteria for prog is that it grows on you and gets better with each listen.  Coheed and Cambria most definitely did this for me.

Can we examine this topic from another perspective?  As a group of people, a society, if you will, of people who are interested in promoting the virtues of progressive music, does it make more sense for us to be exclusive or inclusive?  If we are exclusive, we risk alienating people by coming across as snobbish.  By being inclusive, perhaps someone who is a fan of a band like Coheed and Cambria will see that we, the prog community, accept their band.  They might then be more likely to check out other bands that are even proggier.  We may win some converts that way.  This is especially true of a band like Coheed and Cambria that tends to have a younger audience.  Let's face it, prog needs an influx of young blood.  We're not getting any younger.

Just food for thought...

viperjr98 wrote: By being inclusive, perhaps someone who is a fan of a band like Coheed and Cambria will see that we, the prog community, accept their band.  They might then be more likely to check out other bands that are even proggier.  We may win some converts that way.  This is especially true of a band like Coheed and Cambria that tends to have a younger audience.  Let's face it, prog needs an influx of young blood.  We're not getting any younger.

I agree with you that this site should be inclusive, rather than exclusive.  Yes, there does have to be a line drawn - we can't include every band that has some proggy moments, but I think Coheed and Cambria are prog enough to be included here.

There have been a few discussions about them recently, but has anybody actually submitted them for inclusion?  Or are their supporters just sitting around talking about them, thinking that someone else is going to do it?

coheed and cambria are not prog  
but they are definatley good for prog
 

TheProgtologist wrote: GoldenSpiral wrote: eh... They're really in the margins as far as progressiveness goes.  The only things they really have in common with prog rock  are: 1.  High vocals 2.  Long song/album titles 3.  Interesting concepts However, the music itself is barely progressive, if at all.  Also, they just don't take themselves seriously enough.  There is very little humor in their music, yet they make videos so cheesy and lame that they cant possibly be serious.  I love the idea of a several albums tying together one concept, but I think they're trying too hard not to alienate the pop/emo crowd by being cheesy and goofy instead of presenting themselves as a serious progressive band and letting their actual music reflect the intense lyrical content.  and once again.... proggy != prog. I answered no,btw.

I voted no too.  My friend was trying to convince me that Coheed and Cambria sound like Rush, but i say definately not.  Coheed and Cambria haven't pulled of anything like YYZ or 2112.  I think comparing Coheed and Cambria to Rush is nothing but insulting. Coheed and Cambria is definately not progressive.  They lack the structrual creativity and insturmental might to be considered progressive.