Bands that should and shouldn’t be here

Bands like "Dream theatre" are not prog: really too binary and basic to deserve

the term "prog"

It's prog, compared to the nowadays sh*tty mainstream...

sorry for Dream theatre fans...

Certif1ed wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I cannot agree that Radiohead are prog. They are a very good band who do experiment, but do not try to push the boundaries with their musicianship and instrumentation.Nor are they symphonic. I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!! Do a bit more research! OK Computer is quite symphonic in places - quite Barclay James Harvest-like, I feel,  but there are hundreds of prog bands that aren't symphonic, so this is a null argument! To my mind, if Radiohead are prog then so too are U2, which is patently ridiculous.U2 constantly evolve their sound and experiment with different influences, but this does not make them progressive rock. No, the two bands could not be more dissimilar. There is a difference between bands that experiment within a format, and bands that push the envelope and develop their own sound. U2 are in the former category and Radiohead are in the latter. They are both blinding rock bands and difficult to pigeonhole.To me Rush (my favourite group) have not really been Prog Rock since Moving Pictures either. I would put them in the same ballpark as U2 and Radiohead. Yes it's difficult to pigeonhole some bands, but I would never put U2 and Radiohead into the same ballpark. I can't think of a single U2 song that doesn't have a simple verse/chorus rock-song structure.

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!!

OPINION dear boy! Leaving the final statement:

Do a bit more research!

Uncalled for!

I own all their albums but IN MY OPINION they do none of the things you claim for them.U2 are far more adventurous and take risks too.Although overall I prefer Radiohead.

Prog's greatest asset is also it's Achilles heel in that to be a progressive band you have to do exactly that; progress. If it's in your nature to push the boundaries and look for new sounds/arrangements/melodies then there is always a danger that you will outgrow your roots.

For some that has given us some terrific bands (YES, King Crimson, Mars Volta, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, etc) for others it has spelled their doom (err...that'll be Genesis then  )

It would be incredibly hard to DEFINE what a prog band is (many have tried) but I'm sure most people would agree that they'd know it when they hear it. 

By the way, ABBA is NOT prog.

danbo wrote:  That is our part of the scheme. Find a band that you think fits the criteria of the archive and put forth the evidence to gain admittance. Golly good debate, wot?

Too true danbo, some odd, time signatures, a mellotron and a dodgy haircut do NOT, a prog band make

Nizzy wrote: The Grateful Dead are one of my favourite bands, but have never thought of them as prog. Does anyone disagree?

In my opinion, they can be considered as prog, in the way it's virtuose, complex,

long pieces, like the good allman and santana period.

OK - no probs. Next time I have colonic irrigation I'll make sure the plumbings done properly... thanks 

As I said - my intention is not to flame, but to debate; you disputed a point I made and alleged that I was merely stating opinion. I stated my point of view to the contrary and you seem to see it as a flame war. This seems to be very common around here - maybe I need to brush up on my debating skills 

Maybe it's just me, but I think that debate is healthy - and when on a forum about music, what better stuff to debate than music itself? Yes, it's hard (no, not that... oh. Hang on...), but then prog is hard to listen to - or we wouldn't enjoy it, right?

I'm not using capitals to shout, or funny icons to poke fun or ridicule - when I discuss music, I give it respect. Especially Mariah (we are not worthy...). I just want to get past apparently banal, flat opinions and get to the reasoning behind them. Is that so bad on an intelligent discussions forum?

If so, bad Cert

No hard feelings - it's very clear that the root is a simple communications issue.

I wonder who was the person that coined the term 'Progressive rock' ?? To what band was the label first applied??

My gut feeling is that Radiohead and Muse could qualify for a place in the archives, by the skin of their teeth. I believe they represent prog as it is now, what it has PROGRESSED to!! Ok, so they are not flying around the fretboards, key boards and drums at the speed of sound. They dont obviously dig far out jazz, or pay homage to classical composers. They dont play everything in 7/4 time, but did Floyd?? Did VDGG Did King Crimson?? Did Hawkwind?? No. The criteria for prog is more flexible than we sometimes allow, IMO. What makes the aforementioned old bands prog is their attititude to their music writing. The moods, atmospheres, concepts and the sticking two fingers up at the verse chorus verse chorus formula. Radiohead and Muse share many of these qualities, and should be accepted as modern prog. Rick Wakemen seems to agree. One old progger embracing the new.

Now, as for ELO NO WAY. They were rock 'n' roll when they were just ok, they 'progressed' into pop, they are barely worth a mention. Someone mentioned U2. I dont think so; rock band with a punk/new wave origin. Smashing Pumpkins, great band with a few proggy leanings but not as much as Radiohead and Muse, and not really enough to be considered.

Certif1ed wrote: OK - no probs. Next time I have colonic irrigation I'll make sure the plumbings done properly... thanks  As I said - my intention is not to flame, but to debate; you disputed a point I made and alleged that I was merely stating opinion. I stated my point of view to the contrary and you seem to see it as a flame war. This seems to be very common around here - maybe I need to brush up on my debating skills  Maybe it's just me, but I think that debate is healthy - and when on a forum about music, what better stuff to debate than music itself? Yes, it's hard (no, not that... oh. Hang on...), but then prog is hard to listen to - or we wouldn't enjoy it, right? I'm not using capitals to shout, or funny icons to poke fun or ridicule - when I discuss music, I give it respect. Especially Mariah (we are not worthy...). I just want to get past apparently banal, flat opinions and get to the reasoning behind them. Is that so bad on an intelligent discussions forum? If so, bad Cert No hard feelings - it's very clear that the root is a simple communications issue.

One tries to do the right thing ie use emoticons to take the fire out of situations and whilst you find my latest preoccupation childish, or overdone at best,that is your perogative.

The trouble is that whenever one uses humour in "tense" situations everyone else seems to lose their sense of humour.The fireman smiley was a double-entendre for putting out the flames but also colonic irrigation (oh how we laughed!-NOT!) which was apt given my post.

I fail to understand-you might wish to educate me- how you can opine that a certain band pushes the limits of anything (even patience) and make that a statement of fact.They might be a little more thoughtful than your average Indie band but avant-garde they aint. I stated that I thought they liked to experiment but I feel this is as far as they go.I dont present this as fact but opinion.

I feel it is sometimes too easy for certain individuals to confuse heated debate with confrontation.I understand this is quite often the "nature of the beast" with forums as you cant see the person who is posting and read their body language.Whenever you have a group of people who are passionate about a subject, whether it be Films. Football or Music, discussing the merits and demerits of their favourites there is inevitable raised voices, hoots of derision and a large chunk of momentary disrespect. Then the next topic comes up it's all forgotten and lfe moves on-until the same topic is raised again.

Getting a pompous blast of air from someone (who isnt a member of the band) who feels their opinion on Radiohead or who/whatever is the word of God is fine by me.I enjoy the "banter".What I do mind is the constant insinuation that "persons who shall go unnamed" are  ridiculing,or underminding (or whatever other paranoid nonsense), the more "erudite" forum members. Get a life for Goddssake! I use smileys,large script and different colours to brighten up the page. If I use capitals I AM NOT SHOUTING. This is supposed to be fun! I have never knowingly disrespected someones opinion. If making a silly comment undermines or troubles certain individuals then they should go and lie down until the feeling subdsides.

As I tried to say I dont like to take life too seriously-I am happy for people to make jokes at my expense. But do not bloody well insult my intelligence. I refuse to censor everything I write before posting, I do not believe that a mere music forum warrants this.I think that anyone who spends any longer than a few seconds considering their posts should get out to the pub and join in some "real-life" debate.This is something I enjoy and I aint watching my back any longer.