Faith No More

Heavyfreight wrote: Faith no More are not progressive rock.   You want it all but you can't have it It's in your face but you can't grab it

Edited by Harry Hood - January 04 2007 at 00:54

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   And the Mike Patton argument is not enough, Phil Collins was involved during the golden era of Genesis but nobody will ask to include No Jackett Required.

Harry Hood wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   And the Mike Patton argument is not enough, Phil Collins was involved during the golden era of Genesis but nobody will ask to include No Jackett Required.       Yet we have GTR, a band that has nothing to do with prog, except for the fact that it brought Steve Hackett And Steve Howe together.

    
There's no point in recreating past mistakes

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   IMHO King for a Day, Fool for a Lifetime is probably one of the worst albums, has from love ballads to almost Heavy Metal passing by POP, Gospel, noise, etc but no Prog in the middle.   Iván

Ok ... I consider it a masterpiece. It has many progressive moments too, particularly due to the fact that Mike Patton asked Trey Spruance to play guitar on that one. Mike Patton and Trey Spruance were key members of Mr. Bungle, and both are *not* artists who sold out, like Phil Collins did (since you mentioned him above).

I agree.... FNM is very good but not prog....

Include Amorphis please? Will you? Please?     

TheProgtologist wrote: The "Iron Maiden are here so why not include ________ " is getting old quick. Each artist is included based on their own merits,not simply because another band was added to the database.

This is not true in any way and there is no way to prove that the bands are included by their merits.

Though the "merits argument" is not true, this is going to far. People doesn't know anymore what  progressive rock is. Man, I have friends that have at least 5000 prog records from all ages and genres and they would laugh of a person that says Faith No More is progressive or has anything prog on their sound.

"They did something experimental..." - Ok, Lou Reed did an unlistinable experimental album, Yoko Ono made some unlistenable experimental albums. Add them, they are experimental.
Download this (http://music.download.com/podemicoetbola/3600-8702_32-100618426.html?tag=MDL_listing_song_artist) and then add them, as they are experimental.
Add every band with three songs "experimental" or "with different time signatures". Add everything if it will satisfy you.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: akin wrote: Though the "merits argument" is not true, this is going to far. People doesn't know anymore what  progressive rock is. Man, I have friends that have at least 5000 prog records from all ages and genres and they would laugh of a person that says Faith No More is progressive or has anything prog on their sound. "They did something experimental..." - Ok, Lou Reed did an unlistinable experimental album, Yoko Ono made some unlistenable experimental albums. Add them, they are experimental. Doesn't matter whether somebody knows 100, 500, 1000 or 5000 records ... if they haven't listened to the FNM albums in question, they are not qualified to say anything about their prog status. Merely knowing hit songs like "Epic" and "Easy" is not enough. And for the record: Yes, I think that FNM made progressive music (on their last two albums) No, I would not add them to the archives (they simply don't fit) No, I don't think they're "unlistenable".

They have 5,000 prog rock records and they work buying and selling used records, so they have already had all FNM albums, including some bootlegs you will never see in your life and listened to all of them, for sure (at least to check the quality of the records).

And you contradict yourself when you say that a band made progressive music and doesn't fit in the archives. Why wouldn't they fit if they made progressive music? Probably because you think they rea lly have done progressive music.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ wow, why are you so negative? And you have been here for a while - the difference between Prog and progressive has been discussed a million times. John Coltrane was progressive, but not Prog Rock - Faith No More may also have been progressive, but in the wrong genre (Alt. Rock/Metal/Crossover), or or simply not progressive enough, or not for a full album.

The difference between prog and progressive is the same as the difference of etc and et cetera. The discussions were all useless because the use of progressive tern is wrong, because progressive is the name of a musical genre and to progress (in their genre, compared to their previous effort) is another thing. John Coltrane was not progressive, but he had made some progression of his own sound and of Jazz genre. Faith No More may have progressed compared to something, not were progressive.

And you said progressive music, term that was adopted even in this website to point that it is not just progressive rock, but progressive metal also (and progressive folk, progressive electronic, etc, but there are few people complaining about these genres).

MikeEnRegalia wrote: And about your record store friends: You can't listen to 5000 albums and know all about each one of them. I visit (used) record stores regularly, and the guys working there don't have much time to listen to music. Of course you get to know a lot of albums, but most of them you only look up in the internet (at least nowadays) and try to determine a good price. Ask them about their favorite song from the last two FNM albums - I wouldn't be surprised if they chose "Easy".

If they think Easy is their favorite song, it is a matter of taste. But they would surely praise the progressive bits of FNM songs because they usually like many bands that have few to do with progressive rock just because some few bits. And in the case, they are always listening to music and they don´t even have access to Internet (sometimes they ask me to get some information to them).

MikeEnRegalia wrote: akin wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ wow, why are you so negative? And you have been here for a while - the difference between Prog and progressive has been discussed a million times. John Coltrane was progressive, but not Prog Rock - Faith No More may also have been progressive, but in the wrong genre (Alt. Rock/Metal/Crossover), or or simply not progressive enough, or not for a full album. The difference between prog and progressive is the same as the difference of etc and et cetera. The discussions were all useless because the use of progressive tern is wrong, because progressive is the name of a musical genre and to progress (in their genre, compared to their previous effort) is another thing. John Coltrane was not progressive, but he had made some progression of his own sound and of Jazz genre. Faith No More may have progressed compared to something, not were progressive. Ok, then you live in denial to what's accepted by most other collabs. It is the same as people refering to every non-popular music as classical, when classical music is music made during a certain period of art (like baroque, romantic, etc). The misuse iis widely accepted in the whole world, though not accurate. And you said progressive music, term that was adopted even in this website to point that it is not just progressive rock, but progressive metal also (and progressive folk, progressive electronic, etc, but there are few people complaining about these genres). Ok, so let's include progressive jazz and progressive new age. Face it, this website is limited to certain genres. Progressive music exists outside these genres too, so the term "progressive" is not a genre, but an attribute of music. And it does not merely mean "to progress" - you're ignoring all the things that have been established on this and other websites. I don't have a problem with that - by all means do go on like that. I just happen to disagree. Progressive is a genre because progressive folk, progressive electronic are all progressive rock subgenres. See that folk bands, for example, with long compositions, varied instrumetation, unusual song structure are not added if they have nothing to do with rock. Your beloved prog metal genre was named after progressive rock, so the progressive refers to more or less the same kind of music. The "progressive music" covered in this website is progressive rock and every "progressive  whatever" music named is  progressive rock with strong "whatever" elements. If it is an attibute of the music, which attribute it is? You won´t go far with this. take all the named "progressive" genres and say which attribute of each genre progressive refers to. MikeEnRegalia wrote: And about your record store friends: You can't listen to 5000 albums and know all about each one of them. I visit (used) record stores regularly, and the guys working there don't have much time to listen to music. Of course you get to know a lot of albums, but most of them you only look up in the internet (at least nowadays) and try to determine a good price. Ask them about their favorite song from the last two FNM albums - I wouldn't be surprised if they chose "Easy". If they think Easy is their favorite song, it is a matter of taste. It was a trick question - "Easy" was not on their last two albums. Just a way to find out if they really  know the FNM discography. You offend me in saying that my friends who I consider to have a vast knowledge of music do not have knowledge.Your lack of arguments could only cause this. But they would surely praise the progressive bits of FNM songs because they usually like many bands that have few to do with progressive rock just because some few bits. And in the case, they are always listening to music and they don´t even have access to Internet (sometimes they ask me to get some information to them).

MikeEnRegalia wrote: 2. "Progressive" ... it really is an attribute. "Progressive Rock" is a genre. You may call me an idiot as long as you want, but I won't back down from this position.