ATPS #15: The Other Big 4

micky wrote: easy boys.. .   this is supposed to be fun... don''t forget that

okay father I'll leave it here.

cacho wrote: [QUOTE=MovingPictures07] It's not that I just don't like them, my last words of my last post says it, I've never heard Rush to be related to prog! Even though having albums with 20 min songs, the band is not acknowledge as a prog band for most, well now that we're in PA we know... Even though Rush created some magnificent albums as you say (these are your words) and influenced many bands, Rush isn't a really representative of the genre, I really can't see them, okay I don't see Camel neither, neither Heep. Rush isn't a band you buy to know about prog, it's a band you want to know about hard rock, then you may discover they're prog. Please you're not gonna denie me this, I haven't denied yours.

Well, this is exactly the expanding I needed on your views and I'm glad you explained it better now. Before, it simply sounded to me as: "Because I don't like Rush, they aren't one of the BIG bands.", for the most part.

I see your point and I respect it, but I believe Rush is more tied to prog than you perceive. However, I'm not going to spend hours and hours convincing you of that. I don't care that much, and I'm glad that you have your own opinion and are willing to express it.

If you want to get strict about bands that represent prog, here's how I saw it:


The "BIGGER" 4 of the BIG 8: These are the biggest 4 of prog, in their primes pretty much summed up what prog was about, and easily can be related to by most people (in comparison to the rest of the genre).. they were the forerunners, despite whether you like their music or not, and all influenced in their own unique ways.

Pink Floyd
King Crimson
Genesis
Yes

The "LESSER" 4 of the BIG 8, but still up there: These are the next biggest 4 of prog, in their primes they also summed up their own unique way in influencing prog and other genres. However, when "prog" comes to peoples' minds, these might come after the previous 4 in terms of overall influence and prominence. Differences other than that however may be subjective and trivial.

ELP (though they're the only ones that kinda fit right in between the two lines)
Rush
Frank Zappa
Jethro Tull


I'm willing to expand on that if you don't understand. Now that I see your point of view more clearly, I'm willing to compromise with you and say that we simply disagree on the placement of Rush strictly in prog's realm.

micky wrote: easy boys.. .   this is supposed to be fun... don''t forget that

I know. I just simply was baffled at the lack of actual backing up that people think Heep or Camel or god knows what should be in this poll over Rush. Frankly, it's one of the weirdest claims I've ever heard in my life, as (by my previous posts) you know my stance on it.

I'm not willing to let it ruin some great ATPS fun though; I simply wanted to expand upon my argument and I wanted clarification of the opposition's argument, which I received to a decent extent.

I'm glad this has finally gathered some good discussion though.

GO RUSH!!!



Edited by MovingPictures07 - May 11 2008 at 15:30

cacho wrote: [QUOTE=MovingPictures07] You won't make it ... Here's another clarification, maybe stupid or closed minded but here goes. Since I was grown up with the classic prog (the big 4) I would(will) never have doubt that these are not prog bands. For the other 4 well there's the pt were comes my personal thoughts, my father(not Micky) as well as my brother are huge Zappa fans, I remember my father playing Zappa in England, and there were all my roots come from...Zappa was totally different to the big 4 he played me, Floyd, Genesis and Yes (well 3, he didn't play Crimson). So I really don't associate Zappa with prog, even though you can tell me he is by such caracteristics of music, I won't label Zappa as saying yeah that's prog. Really don't know what to call it, better say Avant-Garde or RIO. Even though being prog sub-genres and don't classifie him as prog, even though being.(the same discussion of Rush) Here is were you can tell me I'm close minded. Well I think the prog label are symphonic, electric, psychedlic and Folk. This is not something to discuss, please, this is how I categorise, divide my music, nobody will change that, it's not really cause being close minded, but I was born with those thoughts and still remain with them. Not saying that Magma, Marillion, etc, etc aren't prog, is that I don't label them as prog, my definition of prog is different, I don't know my definition but I know it when I hear it. Hope this clarifies most of it.

It didn't, but I'll succinctly respond to it and close the discussion thusly:

Regardless of what I was "brought up" with or not, I can come to see if a band represents the "mindset" of prog or not. Prog is not a certain sound, it is an artistic and musical attitude. I'll agree to disagree in this case.

Hold your views and classify as you'd like, but it doesn't have to make sense to me.


Edited by MovingPictures07 - May 11 2008 at 16:52

And if I may put my two cents in for Rush, I would put them 3rd on this list just under ELP or perhaps tied.  (Not that any of this is a contest.) One needs only hear "Natural Science" to place them firmly in the prog universe.  It's got odd time, several sub-sections, lots of weird synths and production effects, is over 9 minutes long, and compares life in a tide pool with all of human existence.  What more does anyone need?

Zappa?  I love his music, but I don't think he took things very seriously.  I think you're supposed to be overly pretentious to be considered true prog.

I guess Weston was in too much of a Rush () and forgot , in his zeal,  to research Uncle Frank who had many legends attached to him, some certainly unflattering but mostly universally known as a stickler for practice, having kept some of his musicians playing until they 1- bleed 2-drop or 3-faint . He put up with no "dinamoh-hums" . Frank took it so seriously, he actually put on a suit and tie and intellectually demolished  the rather ridiculous censorship arguments vehiculated by Tipper (or is it Tippler ) Gore, in various government settings .

tszirmay wrote: I guess Weston was in too much of a Rush () and forgot , in his zeal,  to research Uncle Frank who had many legends attached to him, some certainly unflattering but mostly universally known as a stickler for practice, having kept some of his musicians playing until they 1- bleed 2-drop or 3-faint . He put up with no "dinamoh-hums" . Frank took it so seriously, he actually put on a suit and tie and intellectually demolished  the rather ridiculous censorship arguments vehiculated by Tipper (or is it Tippler ) Gore, in various government settings .

I was joking of course about music having to be pretentious to be progressive, but I do think it's true you can't really consider Zappa pretentious.  There's a whole different attitude between "Astral Traveller" and "Cosmic Debris."   Zappa music has all the elements of prog - except the lofty attitude.  There are times I wonder to what heights "Sofa No. 2" would elevate me if it had only been less comedic.

I still love his music though -- don't worry.  And I recently read The Real Frank Zappa Book.  Highly entertaining and sacred cow bashing.

MovingPictures07 wrote: keith_emerson wrote: Sorry but in spite of Rush popularitity in this site, Rush is not big IMO Maybe you could mention VdGG or Pink Floyd who have at least 2 albums top ranked He edited his post now; Pink Floyd and the other big 3 were already in a previous poll of ours. And as to your comment, VDGG and GG surely would be the remaining 2 making a Big 10, if anything, however... Since when was VDGG bigger than Rush in terms in absolute influence? I absolutely love Magma and Samla Mammas Manna, along with others, but I will NEVER argue that they belong in the big artists because they did not have the widespread influence and impact. Magma unarguably were one of the most innovative and creative bands of all time and you could easily say "oh, well, this artist is just as influential or more influential than ____ and should be in your list instead", but I say it comes down to bringing prog to the grand scheme of things in order for an artist to be listed as a "big" prog artist. When it comes down to it... ask 1000 people if they know of Rush and VDGG and I bet you that the numbers would be staggeringly in favor of Rush. Their impact on prog, IMO, is not to be underestimated (especially over here in the States and in Canada), and I do believe they are underrated in their impact on this site especially.

Not surprising, but kind of an easy vote for me.  Rush are in a tier all by themselves for me followed by Yes in the next tier by themselves.  From this group of 4 ELP would be next with Jethro Tull further down (to be honest mostly for their hits rather than their prog output) and lastly would be Zappa, who barely registers on my radar.  I have one of his first albums, which really didn't interest me all that much, and a "best of" album from him, but other than Valley Girl and Yellow Snow, I really don't know all that much from him.  With Jethro Tull and Frank Zappa, I never really considered them to be prog musicians until I started hanging out on PA.  This is more of a knock on my familiarity with them, than a knock on them.

micky wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: For anyone confused by the title, I'm referring to the 4 other big bands (not PF, Yes, Genesis, and KC) who are often discussed a lot here on PA. Lately, I've kinda been in a Tull mood so they get my vote. for shame...  the only measure of any sorts that Genesis not ELP in is that top 4 is popularity here at PA's.  They dust Genesis is just about any category you chose to make up.. they suffer the crime of not 'popular' today  which is... so very prog oh yeah... voted ELP hahahha