Why aren’t Muse on this site?

 

Sorry, but Muse isn't prog, as well Radiohead isn't prog either. Muse should not be here at all.

Rgds

Gabito

Gabito wrote:   Sorry, but Muse isn't prog, as well Radiohead isn't prog either. Muse should not be here at all. Rgds Gabito

Sorry but Muse is prog and Radiohead are as well.

I can't see any genius there... inventive, yes. Able to combine inventivity with rocking and appealing to lots of people, definitely yes. And even moments of excellence, but generally just pretty good (Citizen Erased is beautiful, though).

MikeEnregalia:

I have heard Train of Thought and thought it utterly, completely dreadful. Neither prog nor metal nor remotely good. I shall await the arrival of Octavarium with interest - it sounds much more my scene; after all most of my listening is prog, not metal. It simply cannot fail to be better than Train of Thought.

Tony Fisher wrote: MikeEnregalia: I have heard Train of Thought and thought it utterly, completely dreadful. Neither prog nor metal nor remotely good. I shall await the arrival of Octavarium with interest - it sounds much more my scene; after all most of my listening is prog, not metal. It simply cannot fail to be better than Train of Thought.

I'm pretty sure that 95% of all sane music lovers of this world would at least say that ToT is metal. If it's neither metal nor prog, what is it? I just don't get it ... why do people who simply don't like DT or even despise them always have to add a nonsense statement to their post that completely destroys their credibility? I mean, saying that ToT is not metal is like saying that The Dixie Dregs are merely a Country band or that Camel aren't progressive.

I picture you giving a lecture in front of a prog fan/musician audience and saying that ToT is neither prog nor metal and then being booed off stage and thrown at with all kinds of rotten froot and vegetable ...

No offense, but I dare you to prove to me that ToT is not metal or just admit that your statement made no sense. 

Tony Fisher, maybe you should start a poll and ask if Muse should be included or not. If the majority considered them prog in that poll, the site owners wouldn't have a choice.

Edited by Logos

Muse isn't prog. It's not post rock eithier. It might be some original rock, but not more than that.

Gabito wrote: Sorry, but Muse isn't prog, as well Radiohead isn't prog either. Muse should not be here at all. Rgds Gabito

You're right ... if Radiohead is not prog, neither is Muse. BUT if you define Radiohead as prog (which this website does by including them), then the same should apply to Muse.

Basically I agree that they're not prog rock. But they're post-rock, art-rock, avant-rock, or whatever you call THAT, and these subgenres are listed here.

projeKct dan wrote: Muse are Neo Prog.  And Radiohead is also.

Isn't neo-prog in fact retro-prog a la Marillion, IQ, Arena? I think Muse and Radiohead are post-rock or, indeed, post-prog.

Heh- it seems to me that is is impossible to define Prog.rock, avant-garde, neo-rock, neo-punk, grunge, any other genre at all. We may as well go off on loooong tangents about it. Though I was told by someone on here that Progressive Rock isn't so much a genre, it's a process/ view on things (at least I think that's what he said...something like that.) Everything is pretty much about interpretation. Nothing is certain.

 Good grief. I've turned into  Socrates.

As for muse and Radiohead...how much love I can give to those two bands is pretty much....unexplainable....(I'm all over them. Not so much Muse as Radiohead.)