| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: January 29 2009 at 13:55 |
It's clear, from listening to the MUSIC, that the suggestion has enough merit, in my view, to warrant approval.
C&C are today's popular prog. And they're not even so afraid of recognizing the link. They're not just a related band.
|
|
|
 |
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: January 29 2009 at 14:08 |
 King By-Tor wrote:
What if we were to evaluate this band as though they were fresh out of the gates with no followers and no high budget MTV music videos - where would we place this band? They have a ton of prog in them - as someone who owns all of their albums (skeptical at first) I can say that they have many different facets and while some people see them mainly as a pop group thanks to 'hits' like Favor House Atlantic or The Suffering what great prog group didn't do that kind of thing in their day? Hell, even the coveted ELP debut had "Lucky Man" as its final track. This is beside the fact, because for every Ten Speed that the band has produced they've also doe a decidedly progressive track such as the excellent Keeping Secrets Of Silent Earth or 21:13.
The band's influences are highly obvious. They play a Rushly type style and in their behind the scenes videos can even be seen wearing King Crimson attire - this does not make the move any more warranted, but it does go to show that they do have respect for the genre and they're not just a bunch of flunkies who would rather wear a "I hate Pink Floyd" T-shirt as some people may believe that they do.
In the state of our modern archives I believe that there is a perfect fit for the band. The subgenre that so beautifully mixes genres with a tinge of contemporary music - Crossover Prog, which did not yet exist when the band was first added. While Crossover is not simply a dumping ground for those bands 'not prog enough' to be put in Symphonic but 'too prog' to be put in Related, it is a perfect fit in this case. They have similarities to other bands in the genre - such as the excellent Pavlov's Dog, they have a popish flavor to them mixed in with a highly progressive touch, and they even have gone so far as to create multi-part suites which I have seen praised in reviews for being "seperate, yet cohesive". The band's lastest effort can be seen as a perfect fit for the genre, as can their earlier work such as "In Keeping Secrets Of Silent Earth: III". Like a certain frontman of one of our crossover artists noted - (RJP of 3RDegree) "We take perfectly good prog songs and ruin them with our pop influences" - and that's what's great about it!
Crossover Prog contains progressive rock music that, though 100% progressive, may have a musical connection to popular music-- whether it be the lack of emphasis on extended compositions, or an influence from mainstream music in addition to classical, jazz and folk. Compositions, however, still exhibit a high degree of sophistication, sometimes outright complexity, and the musicianship and virtuosity is often on a par with established Prog acts. Much like their kin in the established prog sub-genres, these groups will incorporate many major parts of what defines prog rock: the fusing of rock with the structures and discipline of more traditional musics, the use of syntheisizers and new technologies, intelligent thematics, and the expansion of the form.
The defining characteristics of Crossover Prog are a pop music influence that is largely vacant in typical prog rock. Songs tend toward shorter, more concise presentations though still reach beyond the typical verse, bridge, chorus pattern. The harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic structures may be more easily digested in Crossover while not losing the musical integrity that a prog listener expects. Whereas Prog Related bands are generally commercial groups with certain prog elements or players that were involved in prog acts, Crossover Prog artists are predominantly progressive with elements of popular music. |
Comments are welcome. |
Ok I omitted the intro / history and summary paragraphs simply to shorten the post. Looking for arguing points.
1. "I can say that they have many different facets"
2. They have more straight pop hits but so do other bands, you use ELPs "Lucky Man" as an example
3. "They play a Rushly type style"
4. "The band's influences are highly obvious." e.g. King Crimson shirts.
5. They are similar to other Xover artists like Pavlov's Dog and 3.
The most compelling reason IMO for including them is from the "intelligent thematics" which is shown not only in their choosing a name that plays into a multi-album concept, but recurring lyric and melodic themes not only across songs but across albums which is impressive.
Some of their songs do expand beyond standard verse-chorus arrangements, and there are some expanded "suites." The chops they show are average for metal, though above most emo or punk.
Ok, reasons for no.
1. The proggy stuff is the exception to the pop rule rather than the other way around. (A point I already made "Crossover Prog contains progressive rock music that, though 100% progressive, may have a musical connection to popular music"). If you randomly sample C&C, at least 2 of 3 are going to be pretty straightforward pop. (Though I would argue good pop) Your final quote is "We take perfectly good prog songs and ruin them with our pop influences." Coheed and Cambria would more appropriately be "We take perfectly good modern rock songs and improve them with our prog influences."
2. The pop that they play is VERY straight much of the time. Rhythms and structures that even Kelly Clarkson, Staind, or Evanescence would use. The chugging on the pedal note is an 80's standard and the way they play it slightly on top of the beat reminds of new wave bands like the Go-Go's. C&C just use more crunch because that's the standard now.
3. Although the guy sounds quite a bit like Geddy Lee, I can hear almost no Rush in them other than that. Alex Lifeson is often immediately recognizable by tone and attack, while C&C guitars simple are not as distincive. The drums....well that's not fair so I won't go there.
BTW, I have listened about 2 hours of C&C while we've been having this discussion. The Keeping Secrets album seems more proggy overall than IV which I'd sampled in the past, but the song I'm listening to right now "Blood Red Summer" is a perfect example of the points I'm making.
Finally, I really like Coheed and Cambria. Part of my opinion was formed when I learned my fave "Welcome Home" on guitar and realized that it was actually much more simple and repetitive than I thought. They are a great band. IMO they just shouldn't make the cut for anything other than prog related.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: January 29 2009 at 15:49 |
All valid points. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we have two sides to the arguement 
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: January 29 2009 at 15:56 |
Raff wrote:
Today Micky will be working late - I don't know what time he'll be back home, but I suspect no earlier than 6 or 7 p.m. Therefore, if Dean and Chris want to start having a go, please by all means do. I'm sure all of the members of the Xover team will judge the band in purely MUSICAL terms, and not on the basis of other factors.
|
of course - and I would expect nothing less of our wonderful teams  Keep in mind that I wrote my OP at 4 in the morning after work, so if it rambles and gets off topic a bit that's probably why 
|
|
LinusW
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665
|
Posted: January 29 2009 at 18:07 |
Jared wrote:
King By-Tor wrote:
Hey, just be glad I didn't throw them at your team
|
|
Given how emotional things can get around here that is...nothing more...nothing less... 
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 04:29 |
Negoba wrote:
I did read your original post.
Johnny Rotten would roll over in his drug-induced haze to know what gets considered punk these days, (I actually listened to PiL back in the day so don't go after the details, it's just a point) and C&C are neither punk nor prog. It's some nice pop rock with enough variation to keep my interest, but little really new to offer. The guitars are using modern tone but are playing very well worn patterns in straight time including more chugging on the E-string than.....oh well. Just because the guy sounds like Geddy Lee doesn't make them prog.
I didn't mention SOAD to open a new topic, I just use them as a reference point as where the line is drawn. I asked and many others asked that question and it's answered. I accept it and I'm not going to bring it up again, other than as a refernce point.
But it's not up to me it's up to the Xover team. |
The band has not just influences from Post Hardcore bands, but some actual Post Hardcore made it's way into their first album, hence your statement "C&C are neither punk" has been proven incorrect. Post Hardcore has been an established punk/hardcore genre since the mid 80s dude
Edited by HughesJB4 - January 30 2009 at 04:30
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 04:35 |
FWIW, I'll put my 2 cents in and I back Mike's desire to get C&C (hehe, C&C made me think of Command And Conquer just then  ) moved to Crossover and I can think of many bands in PA that are listed under prog genres that are, IMO, not as progressive as Coheed and Cambria are. I'll probably back with a more substantiated post tomorrow if I'm not lazy.
Edited by HughesJB4 - January 30 2009 at 04:38
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 09:07 |
HughesJB4 wrote:
The band has not just influences from Post Hardcore bands, but some actual Post Hardcore made it's way into their first album, hence your statement "C&C are neither punk" has been proven incorrect.
Post Hardcore has been an established punk/hardcore genre since the mid 80s dude
|
Well the Go-go's are considered punk too, moreso than C&C. But punk is about as far from my musical knowledge base as it gets, so I'll just leave that be.
Proven is a strong but slippery word, and eventually arguing about the definitions of words becomes meaningless.
Some of our categories here have alot more coherence to them than others, and I suppose there is no avoiding that. But right now the "Prog Related" category is useless for finding new music because the bands have virtually no relation to each other. It's more an exercise in including our favorites that aren't quite prog for reviews and discussion. It would be nice to prevent Xover from becoming that as well, but that's not my call.
Edited by Negoba - January 30 2009 at 09:07
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 10:07 |
Negoba wrote:
Some of our categories here have alot more coherence to them than others, and I suppose there is no avoiding that. But right now the "Prog Related" category is useless for finding new music because the bands have virtually no relation to each other. It's more an exercise in including our favorites that aren't quite prog for reviews and discussion. It would be nice to prevent Xover from becoming that as well, but that's not my call. |
That's an interesting point Jay. Certainly it is our goal to keep Crossover as an Art Rock subgenre rather than a general catch-all category (read: dumping ground) for bands that don't quite fit anywhere else and are too Prog for Prog Related. Yet from the outset (ie when the sub was set-up) our 'star' bands had little in common musically (Oldfield, Moody Blues, Supertramp, Radiohead, Gabriel et al) and that has continued with subsequent additions and moves. However, the defining ingredient has always been a pop or mainstream element that is prevalent through most of the music - the problem there lies in that the Prog element, (which is the reason for being here), is less defined and can come from any direction, (ie a crossover from any Prog Sub to Pop is Crossover).
As Crossover team members Chris, Micky and myself have different backgrounds and interests, (we also could not be further apart geographically  ), so have a different point of view of what the subgenre should be, which will reflect in how we see the subgenre developing. Yet paradoxically we do appear to be of one accord when it comes to evaluating bands, with most bands being admitted on a unanimous vote.
However, that does leave the problem of how to look at the bands and think - "I like Phideaux, I wonder what other Crossover bands would I like?"
|
|
What?
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 10:28 |
However, that does leave the problem of how to look at the bands and think - "I like Phideaux, I wonder what other Crossover bands would I like?"
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. For instance, modern bands that seem to fit in Xover perfectly are dredg and Pineapple Thief.
If anything, C&C probably fits heavy prog best.
Phideaux brings up an interesting thought that probably deserves its own thread. There are alot of bands that I would probably just label "Modern Prog" that have a unity of sound but are scattered among the categories pretty broadly, most in neo-, eclectic, or symphonic. This includes Spock's Beard, Beardfish, Transatlantic, Flower Kings, what I've heard of Phideaux, the new Umphrey's Mcgee album, and to some extent even Porcupine Tree. They are more similar to each other than Marillion or Gentle Giant or even Yes. Just a thought.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 10:42 |
|
I still think that it would be useful to have a separate category for new prog bands that are rooted in (modern) independent/alternative music. Maybe something like "New/Alternative Prog Rock". Radiohead, Dredg and even Porcupine Tree would fit perfectly there, and they would be separated from classic acts like Supertramp or Mike Oldfield.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 11:10 |
Negoba wrote:
However, that does leave the problem of how to look at the bands and think - "I like Phideaux, I wonder what other Crossover bands would I like?"
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. For instance, modern bands that seem to fit in Xover perfectly are dredg and Pineapple Thief. |
True - but from a regonal perspective (them both being American ) - from the UK we could similarily group The Reasoning, Panic Room, Mermaid Kiss, Touchstone and Breathing Space.
Negoba wrote:
If anything, C&C probably fits heavy prog best. |
Possibly, given that The Mars Volta are there, but "we" have Three and The Dear Hunter which are closer to C&C in my estimation. However, since Heavy and Crossover are related we are in the same ball-park
Negoba wrote:
Phideaux brings up an interesting thought that probably deserves its own thread. There are alot of bands that I would probably just label "Modern Prog" that have a unity of sound but are scattered among the categories pretty broadly, most in neo-, eclectic, or symphonic. This includes Spock's Beard, Beardfish, Transatlantic, Flower Kings, what I've heard of Phideaux, the new Umphrey's Mcgee album, and to some extent even Porcupine Tree. They are more similar to each other than Marillion or Gentle Giant or even Yes. Just a thought. |
True again, but you could equally talk of the 70s bands in a single breath as "Classic Prog" and there was a quality of sound that connected them too, as there is with any band and its contemporaries.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 11:16 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I still think that it would be useful to have a separate category for new prog bands that are rooted in (modern) independent/alternative music. Maybe something like "New/Alternative Prog Rock". Radiohead, Dredg and even Porcupine Tree would fit perfectly there, and they would be separated from classic acts like Supertramp or Mike Oldfield. |
There have been several threads open on New Prog, Nu Prog and Alt Prog and to some degree it would make more sense to seperate them not only from classic prog, but from neo-prog too - but that would mean organising the PA by era rather than subgenre.
|
|
What?
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 11:18 |
Heavy and Xover are indeed related in more ways than one, and quite literally too .... Speaking for myself, I am willing to evaluate C & C for a possible move to HP, but I know that Jared is not very enthusiastic about it, and we are not going to accept any band without everyone's agreement. Anyway, now we are working on previous suggestions, so any action on our part is not going to happen immediately.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: January 30 2009 at 12:29 |
I will be giving the band some serious listening over the next few days. I see though that there are some exstensive discussions in place already. Thankfully regarding a Genre Shift not about evaluation for inclusion 
The Crossover team have a good sense of what is controversial and what isn't and to concur with Dean, most of our evaluations result in unanimous decisions. There are some good arguments both for and against for a Crossover move so I will feedback my response, just give me some time to evaluate the band properly.
I have noted the EMo references in some reviews too.
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
SilverEclipse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 123
|
Posted: February 04 2009 at 15:25 |
|
I'm a bit of a Coheed ambassador around here, they're my absolute favorite modern band.
For those who would make the decision, take a look at some of these particular tracks.
Second Stage Turbine Blade
Everything Evil
Delirium Trigger
Junesong Provision
God Send Conspirator
In Keeping Secrets Of Silent Earth: 3
Cuts Marked In The March Of Men
The Crowing
The Velourium Camper suite
The Light & The Glass
21:13
Keeping The Blade
Welcome Home
Apollo I: The Writing Writer
The Willing Well suite
No World For Tomorrow
Mother Superior
Gravemakers & Gunslingers
The End Complete suite
....they might not sound like traditional prog, but they're prog
|
|
"and if the band your in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon"
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: February 05 2009 at 22:21 |
|
I was quite skeptical of this band at first too. I really couldn't stand the vocals at all. But damn if that Welcome Home song didn't wake me up. I don't mind the voice much anymore, but I didn't dig their first album very much. I assume they embraced prog more and more as their releases came?
|
|
angelmk
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 22 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 1955
|
Posted: February 08 2009 at 09:55 |
|
CaC out of PA, i agree, it's my personal opinion, i don't like their music at all.
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: February 08 2009 at 10:14 |
angelmk wrote:
CaC out of PA, i agree, it's my personal opinion, i don't like their music at all. |
Bands that have been included in our database cannot be deleted, except in special circumstances. PR means Prog-Related, and this is where the band now are. Anyway, bands are not included or deleted on the basis of personal preference. There are a lot of bands and artists here I don't like at all, but that doesn't mean they don't belong here.
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: February 08 2009 at 11:52 |
angelmk wrote:
CaC out of PA, i agree, it's my personal opinion, i don't like their music at all. |
Excellent idea. I've never heard a post rock album that I like, so why don't we remove the entire subgenre while we're at it? Clearly, if I don't like it - it can't be prog in any form, right?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Suggested move - Coheed & Cambria OUT of PR
