So you finally moved The Mars Volta..

Hi Ghost Rider, I think that this goes back to your progressive versus prog thread as into the interpretation of what is progressive or prog.  (or even the Black Sabbath thread or probably thousands of other threads).  Does progressive mean the literal definition of "progressing" music into new realms and new areas or does it mean a band that has elements of the sounds of the bands of the 1970's?  I believe that PA does give consideration to both types of progressive rock music but this also creates the "battle zones" for those that might only agree with the one definition of progressive. I am not familiar enough with TMV in order to provide an accurate opinion of their sound.  What I have heard probably falls under more progressing musical boundaries versus That 70's Sound.   Not being a musician to an extent I rely on others musically wiser than me to say that TMV are progressing musical boundaries.  Probably pointless rambling that will be ignored anyhow, but that is my interpretation of this discussion.

Ghost Rider wrote: I am quite sure you members of the PMT would object in the same way if someone came up to you and said, "move X to another genre!".

I would probably simply post something like this:

"make me! "

P.H.P. wrote: but ok, you know why Steven Wilson refuses the "Prog" tag?? it's because he's aware of how blasphemous would it be if he dares to say it, not only for Prog fans, for himself, because I'm sure he knows what's Prog and he respects it.

Stop spreading lies please.

Can't speak for Steven Wilson's case, but many bands don't want to be labeled Prog for commercial reasons.  Using the moniker can be a poor way to market one's band as it does have a negative connotation with many people (overblown, pompous, pretentious and/or old-style 70's music).  The association can create confusion as people might expect an ELP clone (most I know think of a certain kind of old 70's rock when they think of Prog.  To use the term could risk alienating people -- and if one wants to be thought of as a modern-sounding band.  Shame that Prog is considered so uncool by so many, and that so many give it temporal limitations sound-wise.

If I was inspired by 80's hair-metal, I wouldn't want to call myself a hair-metal band.  Not the same, but Prog has certain connotations that one might not want to associate with.  I don't refer to myself as a Proghead or say I like Prog to others because of the automatic assumptions that many will make about my taste.  Prog just doesn't act as a good description I often find beyond certain classic core-bands/ albums

And sure, if one's not making pure Prog (whatever that is) calling oneself a Prog band can raise the scorn of Progheads (though the mainstream would be a more important consideration usually).

I do believe that many of the better and truly progressive bands today try not to be Prog.  To try to pigeonhole oneself to a (in many people's minds) dated sound, and to try to be generic (follow the movement) is not what being truly progressive is about.  It's more about breaking free of convention and expectations.  To boldly go where no band has gone before (or at least combine genres for a rather unique approach -- not that that need be what Prog is about).

Regarding an earlier comment about The Mars Volta, they are pretty eclectic, and Eclectic might fit well (don't know the band quite well enough).  From what I remember, I'd rather see them in an Alternative Progressive Music category if we had it.  Not a fan, and I don't want to have to listen to the music again, particularly.


Edited by Logan - October 05 2007 at 13:58

And this thread has what to do with "Just for Fun"  

Well, if that is the case, I completely missed the subtlety of it

Edited by T.Rox - October 06 2007 at 19:13