| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
tszirmay 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
 Posted: October 04 2008 at 21:46 |
 Dean wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
For the 60 millionth time, the word "Progressive rock" appeared much later (post 1977) , it was originally called symphonic-rock, flash-rock, techno-rock or even classical-rock (as opposed to the REO Speedwagon, Boston , the Cras , Eagles connotation) . Weather Report was called jazz-rock , along with RTF, Mahavishnu Orchestra etc... Hey, back then , anyhthing with bass and drums was just Rock . Why not include everybody in PA as long as there is arhythm section? After all, everything is progressive , even silence ! |
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but certainly in the UK the term Progressive Rock was used in the early 70s, as you can see from this press cutting from 1970:
|
The term may have been used on occasion but NOT AS A MUSICAL GENRE , at least not in North America! I guess the Brits were always alittel ahead of the game 
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
 |
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 14:34 |
Dick Heath wrote:
And I guaranteed if you asked the band for their opinion, they would wet themselves laughing. When the Stranglers formed they were the antithesis of prog. Why not Police who cames out of the UK punk period- at least you has two ex-prog musicians and a bassist/vocalist who played jazzrock and fan of Jack Bruce.
|
So what? VdGG laughed about the prog sticker too. It is not the intention with which you play that counts, it is the resulting music. The Police, on the other hand, never made any music that could be recognized as prog, although all three members played with artists that are prog. Copeland played with Curved Air, Summers with Fripp, and Sting with Eberhard Schoener (who is long overdue to be added to the archives). But the resulting music is not prog at all. But that's not the case with the Stranglers. I concur with Jean who challenged you to make a blind test and play, for example, "Black and White" to someone who does not know the Stranglers without telling him or her what it is.
Edited by BaldFriede - October 04 2008 at 14:39
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Dick Heath
Special Collaborator
Jazz-Rock Specialist
Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12813
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 12:56 |
|
And I guaranteed if you asked the band for their opinion, they would wet themselves laughing. When the Stranglers formed they were the antithesis of prog. Why not Police who cames out of the UK punk period- at least you has two ex-prog musicians and a bassist/vocalist who played jazzrock and fan of Jack Bruce.
|
|
|
|
Ripples
Forum Groupie
Joined: May 13 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 88
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 16:35 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Dean wrote:
Our "hundreds of other Prog bands" fit into non-Classic Prog subs, all be it as octagonal pegs in round holes in some cases, but when looked at in relation to other bands in that sub do make some kind of sense.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Besides, sub/genrising Prog Rock is a nonsense, IMO. It's simply a way to try to fit all manner of shaped pegs into moving holes. Steely Dan is possibly the worst crowbar attempt I've yet heard.
Dean wrote:
Then I ask, where in the pantheon of Prog would they fit? Prog Ears has them as Post Rock (  !?!!) - an utter misfitt if I ever saw one. |
Here and Now are both rooted in the punk scene and music, so the precedent is already set. I doubt very much that H&N set out to write Progressive Rock. At least one of their albums is mainly a kind of punk reggae.
Never mind the number of chords, that wasn't what I was getting at; The chord progressions swing from rock to blues to jazz-influenced to hints of Classical.
The Doors connection in their early music is easy to hear, the instrumentation is not that of regular New Wave bands, which tended to go for the two-fingered approach to keyboards and single-note bass lines.
The music is related to Prog, ergo Prog-related. Simple. |
I concur, it's plain and simple, there's no mystery, no intrigue.
Way too convoluted here, Prog-related, case closed!
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 16:12 |
Dean wrote:
Our "hundreds of other Prog bands" fit into non-Classic Prog subs, all be it as octagonal pegs in round holes in some cases, but when looked at in relation to other bands in that sub do make some kind of sense.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Besides, sub/genrising Prog Rock is a nonsense, IMO. It's simply a way to try to fit all manner of shaped pegs into moving holes. Steely Dan is possibly the worst crowbar attempt I've yet heard.
Dean wrote:
Then I ask, where in the pantheon of Prog would they fit? Prog Ears has them as Post Rock ( !?!!) - an utter misfitt if I ever saw one. |
Here and Now are both rooted in the punk scene and music, so the precedent is already set. I doubt very much that H&N set out to write Progressive Rock. At least one of their albums is mainly a kind of punk reggae.
Never mind the number of chords, that wasn't what I was getting at; The chord progressions swing from rock to blues to jazz-influenced to hints of Classical.
The Doors connection in their early music is easy to hear, the instrumentation is not that of regular New Wave bands, which tended to go for the two-fingered approach to keyboards and single-note bass lines.
The music is related to Prog, ergo Prog-related. Simple.
Edited by Certif1ed - October 03 2008 at 16:17
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 11:26 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers were rejected for Prog Related earlier in the year and there isn't another sub in which they could be seriously placed. Although I voted in favour of addition, I can accept and understand the reasons for exclusion.
|
Which are? |
You'll have to ask the other PR team members 
Certif1ed wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even though the Prog Related definition identifies three possible reasons for including a band, we have to consider more than just the compositional techniques and musical experimentation (ie "bravery"), for the Stranglers do not appear to be influenced by, or influenced on, Prog Rock per-sey "...the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community."
...which may (or may not) be mere weasel-words, but it has value with regard to the nature of this site and its perception from the outside looking in. This discussion-thread illustrates this point perfectly.
|
Image over music - I get it. |
No, not image as such, that's an over simplification (see my previous post) and not one I generally adhere to when assessing bands.
However, "perception" and the degree of explanation required to change a mind-set (see recent Steely Dan and Metallica discussions) are major factors that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
Certif1ed wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers may have more Prog elements than PT, but their effect on the Prog community and on other Prog bands that came after them is minimal by comparison - not that that is a reason for exclusion in itself, but highlights the drastic difference between the two bands from a Prog (fan) perspective - PT forged their early career with one foot firmly planted in Prog territory, (and then extrapolated into other areas), whereas The Stranglers purposely avoided it.
|
No they didn't purposefully avoid it - they came to embrace the more experimental side of their music which was there all along. They were never a 3-chord punk band and knew it. |
Experimentation and finding the 4th.5th, ...nth chord is not unique to Prog - many New Wave bands developed in those areas, I meant they avoided Prog Rock as a genre, rather than avoiding experimentation, which I wholeheartedly accept they not only embraced, but revelled in.
Certif1ed wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers appear to be more related to Proto Prog rather than Classic Prog, (with Classical Music input from Greenfield & Burnel, Blues from Cornwell and Jazz from Black), which for a band formed in 1974 that hit their creative peak in the early 80s is unusual, to me this suggests they went off on a tangent to Progressive Rock down some musical cul-de-sac that no other band followed.
|
And that is EXACTLY why they belong in Prog Archives.
There are hundreds of "Prog" bands that bear almost no relation to "Classic Prog" (whatever that is), and most have a kind of generic sound, and a verse/chorus approach to songwriting which seems to me to be the antithesis of Prog.
Prog is not a style or an image, and cannot easily be described in terms of elements. It is more about doing your own thing musically than anything else - and that, as you rightly point out, is precisely what the Stranglers did. |
Our "hundreds of other Prog bands" fit into non-Classic Prog subs, all be it as octagonal pegs in round holes in some cases, but when looked at in relation to other bands in that sub do make some kind of sense.
Then I ask, where in the pantheon of Prog would they fit? Prog Ears has them as Post Rock ( !?!!) - an utter misfitt if I ever saw one.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 10:41 |
BaldJean wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers were rejected for Prog Related earlier in the year and there isn't another sub in which they could be seriously placed. Although I voted in favour of addition, I can accept and understand the reasons for exclusion.
Even though the Prog Related definition identifies three possible reasons for including a band, we have to consider more than just the compositional techniques and musical experimentation (ie "bravery"), for the Stranglers do not appear to be influenced by, or influenced on, Prog Rock per-sey "...the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community."
...which may (or may not) be mere weasel-words, but it has value with regard to the nature of this site and its perception from the outside looking in. This discussion-thread illustrates this point perfectly.
The Stranglers may have more Prog elements than PT, but their effect on the Prog community and on other Prog bands that came after them is minimal by comparison - not that that is a reason for exclusion in itself, but highlights the drastic difference between the two bands from a Prog (fan) perspective - PT forged their early career with one foot firmly planted in Prog territory, (and then extrapolated into other areas), whereas The Stranglers purposely avoided it.
The Stranglers appear to be more related to Proto Prog rather than Classic Prog, (with Classical Music input from Greenfield & Burnel, Blues from Cornwell and Jazz from Black), which for a band formed in 1974 that hit their creative peak in the early 80s is unusual, to me this suggests they went off on a tangent to Progressive Rock down some musical cul-de-sac that no other band followed.
|
I completely disagree, Dean. the sole reason the Stranglers are not generally seen as prog is that when they came into existence their record company branded them "punk" for business reasons, because prog was out at that time. but anyone who keeps his mind free of prejudices and listens to the music instead can come to no other conclusion that the Stranglers are obviously prog. make a blind test with people who don't know them and play "Black and White" to them; 10 will get you 1 that they will identify the music as "prog". and that is the reason why I think they definitely belong. it is the music that counts, not any projected image!
|
Yes/no - I agree/disagree - I never saw them as Punk, even in 1977 when I bought Rattus Norvegicus - no Punk band at that time could ever have pulled-off the Down In The Sewer medley and that the branding was pure marketing. And everyone in 1977 saw that too, including the Punks and the Muso-journalists - their musicianship alone was the antithesis of the Punk ethos - it also has little to do with projected image - both Dave Greenfield and Jet Black where the diametric opposites of any idealised punk imagery  .
They came out of the UK Pub Rock scene (another "reaction" to the perceived overblown nature Prog rock that often gets overshadowed by the higher profile Punk reaction) that later blended into the New Wave movement after Punk's demise, along with Brinsley Schwarz, The 101'ers, Ducks Deluxe, Kilburn and The High Roads and a plethora of other blues-related bands of the late 70s. That's more (from a UK perspective at least) why they were never considered Prog or having any connection to Prog (unlike other bands who were (obliquely) associated with Punk at the time like Be Bop Deluxe and Wire)
|
|
What?
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 10:27 |
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers were rejected for Prog Related earlier in the year and there isn't another sub in which they could be seriously placed. Although I voted in favour of addition, I can accept and understand the reasons for exclusion.
|
Which are?
Dean wrote:
Even though the Prog Related definition identifies three possible reasons for including a band, we have to consider more than just the compositional techniques and musical experimentation (ie "bravery"), for the Stranglers do not appear to be influenced by, or influenced on, Prog Rock per-sey "...the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community."
...which may (or may not) be mere weasel-words, but it has value with regard to the nature of this site and its perception from the outside looking in. This discussion-thread illustrates this point perfectly.
|
Image over music - I get it.
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers may have more Prog elements than PT, but their effect on the Prog community and on other Prog bands that came after them is minimal by comparison - not that that is a reason for exclusion in itself, but highlights the drastic difference between the two bands from a Prog (fan) perspective - PT forged their early career with one foot firmly planted in Prog territory, (and then extrapolated into other areas), whereas The Stranglers purposely avoided it.
|
No they didn't purposefully avoid it - they came to embrace the more experimental side of their music which was there all along. They were never a 3-chord punk band and knew it.
Dean wrote:
The Stranglers appear to be more related to Proto Prog rather than Classic Prog, (with Classical Music input from Greenfield & Burnel, Blues from Cornwell and Jazz from Black), which for a band formed in 1974 that hit their creative peak in the early 80s is unusual, to me this suggests they went off on a tangent to Progressive Rock down some musical cul-de-sac that no other band followed.
|
And that is EXACTLY why they belong in Prog Archives.
There are hundreds of "Prog" bands that bear almost no relation to "Classic Prog" (whatever that is), and most have a kind of generic sound, and a verse/chorus approach to songwriting which seems to me to be the antithesis of Prog.
Prog is not a style or an image, and cannot easily be described in terms of elements. It is more about doing your own thing musically than anything else - and that, as you rightly point out, is precisely what the Stranglers did.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 09:37 |
Dean wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Windhawk wrote:
Although not overly familiar with the band what I've heard never struck me as progressive. Experimental perhaps, complex at times, but not progressive.
But those who know the band better than me can probably (or not?) point out stuff like:
- Multilayered melody lines, with either disharmonic or harmonic tendencies to an extent that separates them from mainstream rock, and used as a common element in their music.
Pretty much exists in everything the Stranglers wrote, to a lesser or greater degree.
- Influences from jazz, classical or folk.
Off hand, there's the 13/4 harpsichord part in "Golden Brown" (so there are odd time signatures too  ), but every album has experimentations that hint at those sort of areas, or that you could draw the same kind of simple parallel that a huge number of Prog bands enjoy without being questioned.
- Compositional complexities; not following a structure or approach commonly found in mainstream rock bands .
This one's easy - almost any of their albums will give you this, but try "Aural Sculpture" - the name is a giveaway as to their approach.
- Or (although I doubt this applies in this case) a highly minimalistic approach to music; combined with psychedelic or spacey tendencies.
There is a strong psychedelic tendency - think of the Doors, then listen to their early material - "No More Heroes" is a good example. Listen to the keyboard lead and the independent bass line, and the ascending musical interjections - the piece is not as simple as the chorus would have you believe, and lyrically, we're at an intellectual level comparable with surprising amount of Prog.
|
All of this really proves that you can't just Prog by elements alone.
My gut feel has always been that the Stranglers are very closely related to Prog, if not the full-blown stuff in the sense of Classic Prog. But Classic Prog seems to be seen as just a yardstick these days - the Stranglers are certainly leagues ahead of many Modern Prog bands, such as Porcupine Tree, for example, in terms of Prog elements - yet few seem to dispute PT's credentials, which I've always found a bit mystifying. |
The Stranglers were rejected for Prog Related earlier in the year and there isn't another sub in which they could be seriously placed. Although I voted in favour of addition, I can accept and understand the reasons for exclusion.
Even though the Prog Related definition identifies three possible reasons for including a band, we have to consider more than just the compositional techniques and musical experimentation (ie "bravery"), for the Stranglers do not appear to be influenced by, or influenced on, Prog Rock per-sey "...the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community."
...which may (or may not) be mere weasel-words, but it has value with regard to the nature of this site and its perception from the outside looking in. This discussion-thread illustrates this point perfectly.
The Stranglers may have more Prog elements than PT, but their effect on the Prog community and on other Prog bands that came after them is minimal by comparison - not that that is a reason for exclusion in itself, but highlights the drastic difference between the two bands from a Prog (fan) perspective - PT forged their early career with one foot firmly planted in Prog territory, (and then extrapolated into other areas), whereas The Stranglers purposely avoided it.
The Stranglers appear to be more related to Proto Prog rather than Classic Prog, (with Classical Music input from Greenfield & Burnel, Blues from Cornwell and Jazz from Black), which for a band formed in 1974 that hit their creative peak in the early 80s is unusual, to me this suggests they went off on a tangent to Progressive Rock down some musical cul-de-sac that no other band followed.
|
I completely disagree, Dean. the sole reason the Stranglers are not generally seen as prog is that when they came into existence their record company branded them "punk" for business reasons, because prog was out at that time. but anyone who keeps his mind free of prejudices and listens to the music instead can come to no other conclusion than that the Stranglers are obviously prog. make a blind test with people who don't know them and play "Black and White" to them; 10 will get you 1 that they will identify the music as "prog". and that is the reason why I think they definitely belong. it is the music that counts, not any projected image!
Edited by BaldJean - October 03 2008 at 10:30
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 09:19 |
|
another good example where you can find polyphony is the instrumental part of "Ripples" by Genesis
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 08:58 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Windhawk wrote:
Although not overly familiar with the band what I've heard never struck me as progressive. Experimental perhaps, complex at times, but not progressive.
But those who know the band better than me can probably (or not?) point out stuff like:
- Multilayered melody lines, with either disharmonic or harmonic tendencies to an extent that separates them from mainstream rock, and used as a common element in their music.
Pretty much exists in everything the Stranglers wrote, to a lesser or greater degree.
- Influences from jazz, classical or folk.
Off hand, there's the 13/4 harpsichord part in "Golden Brown" (so there are odd time signatures too ), but every album has experimentations that hint at those sort of areas, or that you could draw the same kind of simple parallel that a huge number of Prog bands enjoy without being questioned.
- Compositional complexities; not following a structure or approach commonly found in mainstream rock bands .
This one's easy - almost any of their albums will give you this, but try "Aural Sculpture" - the name is a giveaway as to their approach.
- Or (although I doubt this applies in this case) a highly minimalistic approach to music; combined with psychedelic or spacey tendencies.
There is a strong psychedelic tendency - think of the Doors, then listen to their early material - "No More Heroes" is a good example. Listen to the keyboard lead and the independent bass line, and the ascending musical interjections - the piece is not as simple as the chorus would have you believe, and lyrically, we're at an intellectual level comparable with surprising amount of Prog.
|
All of this really proves that you can't just Prog by elements alone.
My gut feel has always been that the Stranglers are very closely related to Prog, if not the full-blown stuff in the sense of Classic Prog. But Classic Prog seems to be seen as just a yardstick these days - the Stranglers are certainly leagues ahead of many Modern Prog bands, such as Porcupine Tree, for example, in terms of Prog elements - yet few seem to dispute PT's credentials, which I've always found a bit mystifying. |
The Stranglers were rejected for Prog Related earlier in the year and there isn't another sub in which they could be seriously placed. Although I voted in favour of addition, I can accept and understand the reasons for exclusion.
Even though the Prog Related definition identifies three possible reasons for including a band, we have to consider more than just the compositional techniques and musical experimentation (ie "bravery"), for the Stranglers do not appear to be influenced by, or influenced on, Prog Rock per-sey "...the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community."
...which may (or may not) be mere weasel-words, but it has value with regard to the nature of this site and its perception from the outside looking in. This discussion-thread illustrates this point perfectly.
The Stranglers may have more Prog elements than PT, but their effect on the Prog community and on other Prog bands that came after them is minimal by comparison - not that that is a reason for exclusion in itself, but highlights the drastic difference between the two bands from a Prog (fan) perspective - PT forged their early career with one foot firmly planted in Prog territory, (and then extrapolated into other areas), whereas The Stranglers purposely avoided it.
The Stranglers appear to be more related to Proto Prog rather than Classic Prog, (with Classical Music input from Greenfield & Burnel, Blues from Cornwell and Jazz from Black), which for a band formed in 1974 that hit their creative peak in the early 80s is unusual, to me this suggests they went off on a tangent to Progressive Rock down some musical cul-de-sac that no other band followed.
|
|
What?
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 08:10 |
|
Oh okay, I was listening out for the vocals. I'll have another listen.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 07:53 |
chopper wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
I will explain instead of Friede. true polyphony (in contrast to pseudo-polyphony) in music is a texture made of two ore more INDEPENDENT melodic voices. the stress is on "independent"; if those two different melodic lines both just follow the chord progression they are NOT independent. in that case you speak of pseudo-polyphony.
examples for true polyphony can be heard in several songs of Gentle Giant like "Knots" or "On Reflection" for example, "Walking Down Their Outlook" by High Tide or the beginning of "Meurglys III - the Songtwriter's Guild" by Van der Graaf Generator. a Strangler's song with true polyphony is "Toiler on the Sea", for example
|
I get the example of Knots but I dont know the other songs. Isn't this just multi-part vocals which I don't think is enough to classify it as "prog"? I don't hear anything like that in "Toiler on the Sea". |
it don't have to be vocals, any instrument will do. and it is totally obvious in "Toiler on the Sea" (at least to me). polyphony is so very highly advanced that only very few prog bands ever used it. Zappa of course, but he even used polytonality. the important thing is that the parts have to be INDEPENDENT. you will very rarely find that in prog; it is a very advanced composing technique
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 07:52 |
tszirmay wrote:
For the 60 millionth time, the word "Progressive rock" appeared much later (post 1977) , it was originally called symphonic-rock, flash-rock, techno-rock or even classical-rock (as opposed to the REO Speedwagon, Boston , the Cras , Eagles connotation) . Weather Report was called jazz-rock , along with RTF, Mahavishnu Orchestra etc... Hey, back then , anyhthing with bass and drums was just Rock . Why not include everybody in PA as long as there is arhythm section? After all, everything is progressive , even silence ! |
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but certainly in the UK the term Progressive Rock was used in the early 70s, as you can see from this press cutting from 1970:
|
|
What?
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 07:37 |
BaldJean wrote:
I will explain instead of Friede. true polyphony (in contrast to pseudo-polyphony) in music is a texture made of two ore more INDEPENDENT melodic voices. the stress is on "independent"; if those two different melodic lines both just follow the chord progression they are NOT independent. in that case you speak of pseudo-polyphony.
examples for true polyphony can be heard in several songs of Gentle Giant like "Knots" or "On Reflection" for example, "Walking Down Their Outlook" by High Tide or the beginning of "Meurglys III - the Songtwriter's Guild" by Van der Graaf Generator. a Strangler's song with true polyphony is "Toiler on the Sea", for example
|
I get the example of Knots but I dont know the other songs. Isn't this just multi-part vocals which I don't think is enough to classify it as "prog"? I don't hear anything like that in "Toiler on the Sea".
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 07:12 |
|
I totally agree, Certif1ed
Edited by BaldJean - October 03 2008 at 07:30
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 07:05 |
Windhawk wrote:
Although not overly familiar with the band what I've heard never struck me as progressive. Experimental perhaps, complex at times, but not progressive.
But those who know the band better than me can probably (or not?) point out stuff like:
- Multilayered melody lines, with either disharmonic or harmonic tendencies to an extent that separates them from mainstream rock, and used as a common element in their music.
Pretty much exists in everything the Stranglers wrote, to a lesser or greater degree.
- Influences from jazz, classical or folk.
Off hand, there's the 13/4 harpsichord part in "Golden Brown" (so there are odd time signatures too ), but every album has experimentations that hint at those sort of areas, or that you could draw the same kind of simple parallel that a huge number of Prog bands enjoy without being questioned.
- Compositional complexities; not following a structure or approach commonly found in mainstream rock bands .
This one's easy - almost any of their albums will give you this, but try "Aural Sculpture" - the name is a giveaway as to their approach.
- Or (although I doubt this applies in this case) a highly minimalistic approach to music; combined with psychedelic or spacey tendencies.
There is a strong psychedelic tendency - think of the Doors, then listen to their early material - "No More Heroes" is a good example. Listen to the keyboard lead and the independent bass line, and the ascending musical interjections - the piece is not as simple as the chorus would have you believe, and lyrically, we're at an intellectual level comparable with surprising amount of Prog.
|
All of this really proves that you can't just Prog by elements alone.
My gut feel has always been that the Stranglers are very closely related to Prog, if not the full-blown stuff in the sense of Classic Prog. But Classic Prog seems to be seen as just a yardstick these days - the Stranglers are certainly leagues ahead of many Modern Prog bands, such as Porcupine Tree, for example, in terms of Prog elements - yet few seem to dispute PT's credentials, which I've always found a bit mystifying.
Edited by Certif1ed - October 03 2008 at 07:08
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 22:08 |
|
For the 60 millionth time, the word "Progressive rock" appeared much later (post 1977) , it was originally called symphonic-rock, flash-rock, techno-rock or even classical-rock (as opposed to the REO Speedwagon, Boston , the Cras , Eagles connotation) . Weather Report was called jazz-rock , along with RTF, Mahavishnu Orchestra etc... Hey, back then , anyhthing with bass and drums was just Rock . Why not include everybody in PA as long as there is arhythm section? After all, everything is progressive , even silence !
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 17:08 |
|
I will explain instead of Friede. true polyphony (in contrast to pseudo-polyphony) in music is a texture made of two or more INDEPENDENT melodic voices. the stress is on "independent"; if those two different melodic lines both just follow the chord progression they are NOT independent. in that case you speak of pseudo-polyphony.
examples for true polyphony can be heard in several songs of Gentle Giant like "Knots" or "On Reflection" for example, "Walking Down Their Outlook" by High Tide or the beginning of "Meurglys III - the Songtwriter's Guild" by Van der Graaf Generator. a Strangler's song with true polyphony is "Toiler on the Sea", for example
Edited by BaldJean - October 03 2008 at 17:11
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 15:41 |
BaldFriede wrote:
akin wrote:
For Stranglers addition, depends on the people in charge to evaluate it. If they want to be very flexible, like they are with some additions (citing the site policies), Stranglers may even appear on full-blown prog genres, like Crossover. If they want to be strict, like they are with some additions (citing the site policies), Stranglers will never be added to the site, not even in Prog Related.
|
I disagree, for the reasons already mentioned. If true polyphony is NOT a sign of prog then nothing is!
|
Can you explain what you mean by "true polyphony"?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Stranglers???
