Faux Prog Fans

I am not a fan of progressive rock. I am a fan of bands that fall within the genre "progressive rock".

I find it very telling while criticizing people of an older generation the author of this thread will not reveal anything about himself nor answer a direct question given him.  Pot shots from behind a pillar.   Take it for what it is. 

Edited by Garion81 - August 19 2010 at 23:03

Wire, Television, Magazine, Gang Of Four, Patti Smith, The Fall, Glenn Branca, The Cure, Husker Du, REM, The Smiths, The Minutemen etc, etc, they were running rings around some of the prog bands of the day in terms of making new and unfamiliar sounds. With the current shift in the sight towards including "interesting" music rather than just prog stuff, perhaps post-punk will be in here one day.

I like interesting music. A great deal of this is to be found under the prog banner. Not all of it though.

Evolver wrote: Textbook wrote: Wire, Television, Magazine, Gang Of Four, Patti Smith, The Fall, Glenn Branca, The Cure, Husker Du, REM, The Smiths, The Minutemen etc, etc, they were running rings around some of the prog bands of the day in terms of making new and unfamiliar sounds. With the current shift in the sight towards including "interesting" music rather than just prog stuff, perhaps post-punk will be in here one day. Sorry. I must disagree. Some of the artists you mentioned were making some slightly interesting music.  But mostly the sound was "whine & complain".

I can't relate your assertion to what I know of these bands - not that I know all of them very well.  But if you are going to say something like that, I expect you can back it up with a few examples.

Evolver wrote: The major labels were out in full force, pushing bands to be stylish instead of creative.

This is truer of the remaining 'prog' bands at the time than about any of the bands listed above, at least in terms of label influence (though I would say it was more towards making the music formulaic and commercial rather than anything to do with being stylish).  The assertion that The Fall or The Smiths were being pushed by major labels to be stylish is simply laughable.

ProgBob wrote: Evolver wrote: Textbook wrote: Wire, Television, Magazine, Gang Of Four, Patti Smith, The Fall, Glenn Branca, The Cure, Husker Du, REM, The Smiths, The Minutemen etc, etc, they were running rings around some of the prog bands of the day in terms of making new and unfamiliar sounds. With the current shift in the sight towards including "interesting" music rather than just prog stuff, perhaps post-punk will be in here one day. Sorry. I must disagree. Some of the artists you mentioned were making some slightly interesting music.  But mostly the sound was "whine & complain".   I can't relate your assertion to what I know of these bands - not that I know all of them very well.  But if you are going to say something like that, I expect you can back it up with a few examples. Evolver wrote: The major labels were out in full force, pushing bands to be stylish instead of creative. This is truer of the remaining 'prog' bands at the time than about any of the bands listed above, at least in terms of label influence (though I would say it was more towards making the music formulaic and commercial rather than anything to do with being stylish).  The assertion that The Fall or The Smiths were being pushed by major labels to be stylish is simply laughable.

ProgBob wrote: Evolver wrote: The major labels were out in full force, pushing bands to be stylish instead of creative. This is truer of the remaining 'prog' bands at the time than about any of the bands listed above, at least in terms of label influence (though I would say it was more towards making the music formulaic and commercial rather than anything to do with being stylish).  The assertion that The Fall or The Smiths were being pushed by major labels to be stylish is simply laughable.

I  agree - and certainly of the bands listed while many of them were signed to major labels it was eaily a case of substance over style for most of them (hell, Wire and Magazine were signed to "Prog" labels Harvest and Virgin - not exactly labels known for pushing bands to be stylish)

Snow Dog wrote: Evolver wrote: ProgBob wrote: Evolver wrote: Textbook wrote: Wire, Television, Magazine, Gang Of Four, Patti Smith, The Fall, Glenn Branca, The Cure, Husker Du, REM, The Smiths, The Minutemen etc, etc, they were running rings around some of the prog bands of the day in terms of making new and unfamiliar sounds. With the current shift in the sight towards including "interesting" music rather than just prog stuff, perhaps post-punk will be in here one day. Sorry. I must disagree. Some of the artists you mentioned were making some slightly interesting music.  But mostly the sound was "whine & complain".   I can't relate your assertion to what I know of these bands - not that I know all of them very well.  But if you are going to say something like that, I expect you can back it up with a few examples. Evolver wrote: The major labels were out in full force, pushing bands to be stylish instead of creative. This is truer of the remaining 'prog' bands at the time than about any of the bands listed above, at least in terms of label influence (though I would say it was more towards making the music formulaic and commercial rather than anything to do with being stylish).  The assertion that The Fall or The Smiths were being pushed by major labels to be stylish is simply laughable. Laughable?  Nihilistic, droning, easy to produce depressing music was all the rage.    Were there any remaining prog bands at the forefront?  At that time, ELP was gone, King Crimson had resurfaced with the Discipline band (which, despite being lesser than their previous albums, was better than any of the bands you mentioned), Genesis was even poppier than Asia, Yes came back with 90125 (again, better than the bands you mentioned)...   The best music was hidden underground. And was extremely rare in the U.S.  Univers Zero, Dr. Nerve, Djam Karet, and even Marillion, to name just a few  and the like were playing better music than all of the bands you mentioned, but were obscure to all but a few.  Radio was getting homogenized by corporate interests, and the Internet was in it's infancy.  There was no easy way to discover anything but the pap the major record labels were offering.      I couldn't disagree more.

Yes you could.

Evolver wrote: Laughable?  Nihilistic, droning, easy to produce depressing music was all the rage.  Were there any remaining prog bands at the forefront?  At that time, ELP was gone, King Crimson had resurfaced with the Discipline band (which, despite being lesser than their previous albums, was better than any of the bands you mentioned), Genesis was even poppier than Asia, Yes came back with 90125 (again, better than the bands you mentioned)...

Actually it wasn't really me mentioning bands - that was in an earlier post - but you've got to be kidding about 90125 right?  I am speaking as a massive Yes fan who bought 90125 on the day it came out.  Now that was depressing. Not quite as depressing as Asia, but still it was only a notch above bog standard US-style AOR/stadium rock.  I'm not going to cut it any slack just because it has the name of one of my very favourite bands on the cover.  I'm certainly not going to put it above Marquee Moon, Horses, Secondhand Daylight, The Correct Use of Soap, Zen Arcade, Warehouse: Songs and Stories, Murmur, Reckoning, Hatful of Hollow or The Queen is Dead to name but a few of the albums from the bands mentioned earlier.
And none of those albums is depressing in the least!

I have to say that Discipline is a great album BTW.

Evolver wrote: I liked 90125.  It wasn't a masterpiece, but the arrangements, for 80's music, was pretty good.  As for the other albums you mention, I've heard about half of them, and none impressed me.   And The Smiths - Johnny Marr could impress me at times, but the "melodies" were atrocious.  It seemed like Morrissey would sing the same three notes in every song.  After three or four songs, and I wanted to smash his albums.

Well the world would be a boring place if everyone had the same opinions.  I've been around for long enough to know that The Smiths are one of those polarising bands! 

I agree that the production wasn't bad on 90125 though if you take away that Trevor Horn sheen, I think you are basically left with what I said: AOR.  Which is one of my most hated genres. 

The other thing you said "for 80's music" - maybe we have some common ground after all if you are referring to the production styles that were common, the awful digital synths etc. that were around  then.  Even though the 80s was my era if you go by my age, really my musical centre of gravity has always been late 60s/early 70s.  It was only the bands like REM, The Smiths and Husker Du that I could stomach in the 80s as they stood apart from the plasticky stuff that was prevalent.