Are they progressive?

I've never thought of Can being really Prog. But alot of peolple do aand I have no problem with that.

OT Räihälä wrote: Ferchrissakes, don't get mad! I see, light "dressing-room banter" is obviously not your cup of tea...

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 01 2010 at 16:39

OT Räihälä wrote: Ferchrissakes, don't get mad! I see, light "dressing-room banter" is obviously not your cup of tea...

hahhahahahaha...



sh*t....  there is another layer of diet coke for the monitor...


NAAAHHHHHH but that is why we love the guy

(De)progressive wrote: I write those bands just for example. I know the differences between them. Can and Neu! example are given for general krautrock genre, it's definite that they are progressive bands in general at least for me but I just had the felt of giving them as examples.  The reason of this topic is to find about more problematic bands and listen the opinions about them.

I thought there was significant method to your choices as Krautrock, and Can and Neu! specifically, influenced Radiohead and of course Muse cites Radiohead as an influence... Radiohead, Muse, Neurosis all claim Pink Floyd as an influence, Krautrock was influenced by Floyd (certainly Tangerine Dream was) and Cult of Luna is definitely influenced by Neurosis. Swans was influenced by the post-rock outfit Joy Division, as were, I certianly think, Radiohead and Muse (I know Radiohead has covered Joy Division) and I know that Joy Division was influenced by the Krautrock band Kraftwerk.

I think one can draw many similarities between these artists.  Venn diagrams would show lots of overlap -- overlaps in styles, approaches, and influences.

As for the question itself -- I definitely consider Can and Neu! to be progressive, but whether it's considered Prog proper is a different question.  They were part of the Berlin School and Krautrock movement which can be thought of as parallel or tangential to the Prog movement -- progressive rock and Progressive Rock (i.e. Prog) needn't mean the same thing, of course, and of course one can be progressive without being progressive rock, and one can be Prog without being progressive.


Edited by Logan - March 29 2010 at 14:04

I forgot to mention them, what about Katatonia, Akercocke, Nevermore and Sunn O)))?

micky wrote: there must be some misunderstanding... whoo... there must be some kind of a mistake... whoooo..

HAHAHAAHA you just made my day

More importantly, will it blend?

^

OT Räihälä wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: If they are not part of the Progressuive ocj genre...They don't belog here, no matter how progressive (adjective) they are....And that description "they do bring a heightened form of music to the masses", sounds incredibly prog snob even to me, the purpose of Prog is to bring the joy of music to a sector of the population thatwants something different to top 40's, not to enlighten anybody...At the end, It's just Rock & Roll.   But I said I believe they are part of the genre, unlike I thought some years ago, not enough to put them in the level of Yes, Genesis, ELP, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Kansas, Renaisance, Caravan, Magma, etc, but enough to be here.   Iván  Ivan, I'm usually a fan of yours, but here you are talking bollox, I'm sorry to say. What is progressive music? IMO it is music that explores new ways and sounds with a new attitude and gives a sh*t to the "laws" or regulations of each genre. Progressive doesn't have to sound like the 70's bands that you list above. If there is a well-known band more interested in "exploring new ways" than Radiohead, please name it. IMO Radiohead are very progressive in their thinking and for that reason must be included in Prog Archives.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 28 2010 at 19:01

And how about Yngwie J. Malmsteen? He uses a lot of classical influences and compose with classical forms (i mean, Sarabande, Suite, Fugue, i dont really now the name of that). 

Edited by Prog966 - March 28 2010 at 17:02