Proto/Related ... only for 70s?

^ Pablo Honey is seriously underrated. And some of the songs are amazingly complex compared to typical indie music of that era.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Pablo Honey is seriously underrated. And some of the songs are amazingly complex compared to typical indie music of that era.

    
Not really - for example, I think that Blur and Pulp produced some very complex material too. While I dislike Blur's music simply because I don't like it, Pulp's "Different Class" (which I do like a lot) has many surprising subtleties in it.

I agree Pablo Honey is underrated, though
    

Edited by Certif1ed - May 07 2006 at 18:06

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I don't really know Pulp (only their hit "Common People"), but I knew Blur quite well back then. I can't remember any of their songs being as experimental as Anyone Can Play Guitar, I Can't or Blow Out.[IMG]height=17 alt=Smile src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

I'd recommend "Different Class" - it's a really good album IMHO, and more sophisticated than you might think.

While I never liked Blur (except for Song #2), they did run a real gauntlet of styles. I'm not suggesting for a minute that they're more progressive than Radiohead, and really I should be bashing them for some of the atrocities they produced, like "Park Life" - but even that is experimental in aspect and intelligently put together.

I just hate it!

     
    

While we're on the subject of 1990s bands, do you know Beck's music?

Edited by Certif1ed - May 10 2006 at 08:28

Certif1ed wrote: ivansfr0st wrote: That's not how *I* would put it, Cert, especially knowing that the whatever percent of Genesis music is prog is associated with prog practically by anyone, whereas the only people who consider Radiohead are the overtly obsessed prog fans who pay so much attention to classification and categories. Most of us, basically. [IMG]height=17 alt=LOL src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> So, in any case, Genesis is more prog than Radiohead.    -- Ivan At least you seem to get the little joke there, Ivan...       But I don't think it's true to say that I pay any attention whatsoever to categories - I hate subgenres with silly names with a passion. While I was of course teasing about Genesis, I still take issue with statements like "Only OK Computer is Prog, so Radiohead aren't prog", because of Kid A and Amnesiac, which are, if not "Symphonic Prog", at least the same sort of Prog as Can or possibly early Kraftwerk and in the same Avant-garde school of thinking as some of the early electronic bands like the Silver Apples, Fifty Foot Hose and White Noise. Radiohead have only produced one "Indie" album (if you can call it that, as Parlophone is hardly an independent label!), and that's Pablo Honey. So it's not fair to lump them in with "Britpop" bands, even if bands like Blur and Pulp did come up with some very inventive material, they were never as off the wall as Radiohead were with Kid A or Amnesiac.

I think of MoP as progressive, but not as "Prog". That's the main problem. Operation: Mindcrime is here under the label "prog" although it's not very progressive, MoP is not here although it's very progressive.

The world isn't perfect!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I think of MoP as progressive, but not as "Prog". That's the main problem. Operation: Mindcrime is here under the label "prog" although it's not very progressive, MoP is not here although it's very progressive. The world isn't perfect!

Indeed - but that's a different discussion
     

And I definitely think of MoP as Prog - especially in terms of Prog Metal - as well as progressive.

Even Kill 'em All is progressive.

And I won't start to name any bands or albums that I don't think of as even remotely progressive...

^ depends on how much you appreciate technicality. IMO MoP is a better mix of innovation, technicality, psychedelic "remnants" and raw energy. Justice is not as diverse, although some tracks (One, Justice) are more progressive than MoP.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Or in other words: Genesis are more obviously prog (at least the 30% of their discography that are), and Radiohead are not prog in the 70s sense, but if you stretch your imagination a little bit and acknowledge the fact that their music is progressive, and they're a rock band.

ivansfr0st wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Or in other words: Genesis are more obviously prog (at least the 30% of their discography that are), and Radiohead are not prog in the 70s sense, but if you stretch your imagination a little bit and acknowledge the fact that their music is progressive, and they're a rock band.   Yes, you are right. The site, despite being more unconventional(in a positiive way!)than most prog sites, still judges groups by how "prog" they are in the traditionally accepted meaning of the word. For example, instead of adding such an amazing proggy progressive collective as My Dying Bride, this site will gladly accept a third rate Dream Theater rip-off from Albania.    -- Ivan

Listening to OK Computer and Kid A, it seems obvious to me that Radiohead became "Prog" very much in the 70s sense - even if it was unintentional. It also seems clear to me that Radiohead became Prog in a more modern sense with Kid A.

Let's face it, Genesis didn't start out by saying "Hey, let's be a Prog Rock band" - that's just how people labelled them several years after the event - and, unlike Radiohead, their first album has absolutely no proggy elements - with the arguable exception of a single song.

I'm not familiar with the music of My Dying Bride, but I've heard quite a bit about them recently - I'll check them out.
    

Speaking of My Dying Bride, it's a good idea to start out with Turn Loose The Swans, which is their BEST album(I would probably tell you which is their MOST PROGRESSIVE album, but it is way too inaccessible and most MDB fans hate it). In my opinion, MDB's sound is best introduced on that release and I tend to think that their sound is both progressive and very prog-related/influenced. Since groups like Anathema, The Gathering, Novembre and 3rd And The Mortal are featured on the website, I simply don't understand the progmetal specialist's response "they don't sound like most progmetal". Isn't that why we make more room for _different_ kinds of prog? None of the groups listed above are associated with prog. People say that MDB aren't prog because they are Doom/Death Metal and Gothic Metal. Well, I think this is a bit unfair. Many of the groups in various categories are not classified the same: outside of the prog fans nobody calls Radiohead, Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel prog. Another example would be Lacrimosa. Every stereotypical goth who dresses in black and sleeps at the local cemetary knows he is not a "true" follower of the trend if he doesn't listen to Lacrimosa as much as if he ignores Marilyn Manson(who isn't a part of the goth scene, but that let's not go further in detail).

Edited by ivansfr0st - May 13 2006 at 11:45