Overrated?

No, it's stupid because you are providing no justification for it other than that it's too weird. And I don't know what planet you are living on, but the music press HATES prog. Some guy said Emerson was akin to a war criminal. And no, we don't listen soley to prog. I also listen to Classical and Jazz. But yes, I do avoid most modern mainstream music like the plague. Why? Because I find it bland, stale, and derivative. Hey, look! It's another song about sex and drugs! Whoopie! Or even better, the singer is whining about his girlfriend or his tormented inner life. Because being a rich and famous rock star sucks so very, very much...

Edited by Ghandi 2 - June 17 2006 at 16:56

jj1414 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: jj1414 wrote: Xenoxen wrote: How can a prog be overrated? I just don't see this word useful in music.   SO What makes a Prog band overrated?   Overrated is a very good word to describe most prog music...   What do you want from this site exactly?       Nothing, I'm just curious about people that listen to this type of music all the time and refuse to listen to different things.

Most of us aren't like that.

Ghandi 2 wrote: No, I'm giving the reasons why I don't like Linkin Park, unlike jj, who has only said that he thinks most of prog is too "weird." If you like them, whatever; I'm just saying why I don't like them. And all of their lyrics are like that. Can you name 2 songs of theirs which are not about some unspecified psychic wounds or his girlfriend dumping him/fighting with him? As for the mainstream comment: Prog-metal is not mainstream.

^ ahh, i get it,, heart breaking stuff for every single song is EMO...

^ hey cool man, take it easy... i was just saying most EMO songs are heart breaking songs... dont make it confusing and complicated with hair metal, industry, 80s stuff...

Ghandi 2 wrote: Oh, I thought you were insulted by my mainstream comment because bands like Dream Theater, Tool, and Opeth are very popular in many circles which do not normally listen to prog. I don't mind heart-breaking stuff once in a while, but it gets really annoying when almost every. single. song. is whining about his girlfriend or some mental problems. Hey, you're rich! Either get another girlfriend or get some therapy, but I don't want to hear about it!  Depressing is ok, but I can only take so much of a view into the singer's inner psyche. I like The Bends, because Thom always says "you" instead of "I"; it's subtle, but it makes the difference from it being depressing to it being whiny.

It's funny that when actors overact, people tend to recognize it, because you can compare it to ordinary human behavior and see that it's totally phony and fake. In the case of EMO and SCREAMO, the singers are overcompensating for that the fact that the MUSIC itself has no substance, they're w**king on the same three chords since 40 years, and nothin' happening lyrically either, so I'll just act out a nervous breakdown, that'll at least seem like something new and "edgy". Strangely, people can't get enough of this, and the women singers are trying to outdo the guys at being pissed off and upset how their lover treats them SOOO bad. But hey, if you identify with the personal brand of pain that they're portraying, then enjoy it, but don't be naïve and fool yourself into thinking it's authentic, or anything but cold calculation for the market. Again, nothing to do with ratings or prog, just the sad state of the multi-billion dollar music industry.
     

But to get back to prog, I was just in Rome, and in every record store I was in, there's a section for Yes, Crimson, Genesis, PFM (of course), etc. That means that these bands that dared innovate still have place in the contemporary rock landscape, while 99% of the mediocre new Wave, Disco, Punk, or whatever once was the "latest thing" have disappeared from popular memory...a similiar fate awaits clone EMO groups and other trendmongers.
    

Edited by RoyalJelly - June 17 2006 at 02:42

MikeEnRegalia wrote: "w**king on the same three chords since 40 years" ... do you mean that the purpose of music is to evolve to using new chords indefinitely? There is a limited number of chords, and I'm sure that a piece of music doesn't have to use as many chords as possible in order to be interesting.

    
Well, yes, why not? Not that nice music can't be made using familiar chord progressions, but bands or artists that rely entirely on pre-existing formulas, with nothing new to distinguish them, are certainly engaged more in a process of recycling than of artistic creation. It's to their advantage that younger audiences haven't heard these clichés a million times already and think maybe they're original. If there are a limited number of chords, even that is disputable since there are many types of chords besides the major and minor exclusively used in pop (with the occasional 7th or diminished thrown in), but possible combinations are indeed infinite, so just reusing ones for the umpteenth time is a clear sign of a lack of originality. The main point is not newness for its own sake, but having something to say musically.

    I agree that it's POSSIBLE to use simple chord changes in astonishing new ways, but few pop/rock musicians are in a position to know how to do this...Peter Gabriel, David Sylvian, Peter Hammill, Kate Bush, Robert Wyatt are a few, all people capable of working in more complex forms when the concept calls for it. I'm just discovering Wyatt's early stuff, and amazed at how he turns around simple changes in totally surprising ways, like in "Sea Song". But that's not all he does...and there's a big difference between doing that because you want to and CAN, and just rehashing clichés because you have no new ideas, and because they tend to sell better (ie. about 90% of pop/rock).
    

Edited by RoyalJelly - June 17 2006 at 12:04

Ghandi 2 wrote: No, it's stupid because you are providng no justification for it other than that it's too weird. And I don't know what planet you are living on, but the music press HATES prog. Some guy said Emerson was akin to a war criminal. And no, we don't listen soley to prog. I also listen to Classical and Jazz. But yes, I do avoid most modern mainstream music like the plague. Why? Because I find it bland, stale, and derivative. Hey, look! It's another song about sex and drugs! Whoopie! Or even better, the singer is whining about his girlfriend or his tormented inner life. Because being a rich and famous rock star sucks so very, very much...   And yes, I have given your precious Linkin Park a chance; I owned two of their albums in a previous life, unfortunately. I used to like them, but now I find their melodies uninspired, the beat has far too much dominance, the lyrics annoyingly whiny, and the vocals even more so. ("III'VEE BECOME SO NUUUMBB! I CAN'T FEEEL YOU THERE!" and "CRAAAAAAAAAAWWWWLLLING IIIINNN MY SKIIIIIIIINNNN! THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOOOOOT HEEAAAALLL! FEEAAAAARR ISSS HOW I FAAAALLL! CONFUUUUUSING! COOONFUSING WHAT IS REAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLL!") How more juvenile can you get? What wounds? How did you get them? Why won't they heal? And stop whining about your girlfriend dumping your loser ass and get over it!

Those lyrics look perfectly good to me - what's actually wrong with them?

From your comments, it looks like you simply don't understand them!

The irony.

I can think of far worse Prog Rock lyrics.
    

To Gahndi 2 (mainly) and to all the rest :