Popular Prog Bands that you just can't get into

Oh, and thanks for the hints about Magma I have just been watching bits and pieces on Utoob and not having any in my collection (Steve Davis put me off) I was interested in where to start.

Snow Dog wrote: Raff wrote:   And, btw, it's not 'crooning', but 'crowing', I suppose... I don't generally make soothing sounds like I would to a baby when I talk about the music I like. You don't? We all do round our way.

akamaisondufromage wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Raff wrote:   And, btw, it's not 'crooning', but 'crowing', I suppose... I don't generally make soothing sounds like I would to a baby when I talk about the music I like. You don't? We all do round our way.     Yep we do too.  Then we make lots of goo goo gaa gaa noises and end up dribbling down our fronts!

One thing that surprised me about this topic was the mention of several "mainstream" bands that are constantly referred to in this forum (Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP).

Padraic wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: People should stop recommending M.D.K. as a starting point for Magma. We're losing a lot of potential devotees because of that  I couldn't agree more - the studio MDK didn't click with me until I was well into Magma and well-versed with the version from Retrospektiw I-II, which I still prefer.  I like Kobaia or 1001 as an introduction, followed by Kohntarkosz and Retro if you're not scared off.  Problem is those two early albums are very different from MDK and the later material, but I still think it's a bit easier in terms of exposure.

I'm a discography-walkthrough guy, and I can personally say it worked (becoming a fan, that is). Kobaia is the best way to begin with Magma, due to the fact that it's richly jazz-avant-esque, with the well-known Zeuhl chemistry yet to appear.

So, M.D.K. is probably recommended as a starting point for Zeuhl Magma. Cause I wouldn't grab 1001 first, it was a confusing experience.

Furthermore, I think that once a person has accepted MDK (thus, the Magma core style), into his system, he can perfectly explore the band as chronologically as possible. The trilogy, in complete sequence, then perhaps the 75 live concert, after which it all becomes subjective (especially with Udu Wudu and Attakh - but we're past introductions by now): further concerts like the Retrospektiws only highlight the already mentioned classics.


Edited by Ricochet - June 13 2009 at 09:06

GaryB wrote: One thing that surprised me about this topic was the mention of several "mainstream" bands that are constantly referred to in this forum (Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP). My first impression of this site was that posting a negative opinion of these bands would lead to a barrage of reprimands. After all, these bands pretty much dominate the first twenty slots on the top 100 list. The main point here is that "not being able to get into" is not the same as saying the band is bad.

I see your point, and agree with it. However, what makes people react badly is not posts saying, "I don't like band X" (which is perfectly legitimate), but rather derogatory, patronising comments such as, "You have to explain to me what is so special about X". This is what really gets my goat up.. Why should I have to explain why I like something? Have some people never heard of personal taste?

Frost

Opeth. I don't like the transitions from calm to heavy.Mikael has an amazing voice both gruff and clean.I did like Morningrise back in the day though but they lost me after that.

Captain Capricorn wrote: The ones for me are Marillion & The Flower Kings ...I have absolutely no idea what all of the praise is about.