Not prog

Moaner!!

There are no descriptions of your six first mentioned artists/bands on www.progarchives.com. Maybe they are mentioned in the forums?

They have all progressive elements in the music, but I agree, it's not enough to be characterized as progartists, with one exception. Pekka Pohjola is an important figure on the progscene with his participation in Wigwam and also his soloworks, strongly influenced by Frank Zappa. I guess some of his work is pure jazz, but have never heard it....

If you think about it, progressive music has originated from other musical genres. Any new form, by it's very nature, will consist of multifarious influences. That's the beauty of prog (for me) in that it has taken elements of predominantly psych/classical and jazz and created it's own art form. These originating genres are essential in the make up of prog but are not themselves "prog". This is my beef with the artists I mentioned earlier (which must also include 10cc) - their music does not explore (for me) any new territory outside that of pop.

As I said, all very subjective. The most important thing is that we all love the music that we ourselves like and in common with most human beings we like to categorize and place things into recognizable boxes ie prog/psych/art-rock etc..

I'm sure I have yet to hear the last of this - that's what these forums are for after all.

stormcrow:YEAH!! Journey had their "prog Moments"..not sure if they were cosistent though!!

Queen II had many prog moments and the Prophet song, from NATO, was a pure prog epic. Rick Wakeman played on much of the best Bowie stuff. Changes, Space Oddity, Moonage Daydream............. Prog. "Let's Dance" = not prog.

 

What I think needs to be considers is whether these bands were prog or they used prog techniques as accents to their pop. The "taste of the week technique." If it's popular, use it. Remember when everybody, during the black hole '80's, used the same synth patches and drum machines? 

Welcome Aboard, Cert.

I've always held the early Queen catalogue as Prog. Innuendo could be. Doesn't Steve Howe guest on a track?

Anyway, ... Great post. Debate is the best way to share ideas.    

danbo wrote: Welcome Aboard, Cert. I've always held the early Queen catalogue as Prog. Innuendo could be. Doesn't Steve Howe guest on a track? Anyway, ... Great post. Debate is the best way to share ideas.

yeah, right. Fat-bottomed girls make the world go round!

Edited by Joren

Quote "I think you're overdoing it now! I admit that Judas Priest did some proggish stuff for their second album, but that's all (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of early Priest). And although I like Metallica, how can you call THAT prog?!  It's progressive, but that's not the only thing that counts. In their way, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Mercyful Fate, and even Slayer were progressive!! You need to offer more than just tight metal songs and time changes to be considered prog. I love Diamond Head, but it's just NWOBHM, nothin more nothing less! And don't say that you think Raven is prog as well! " /Quote

(How do you do that box thing?)

I'm serious - especially about Metallica up to "Justice for All". The music broke boundaries and pushed the form of heavy metal to the point that everyone panicked and started inventing new terms - thrash metal, speed metal, etc. New bands like Helloween started sprouting - and, of course, Kai Hansen who tried valiantly to inject classical into thrash (or was it the other way around?). As a result, we got the Yngwies and Satrianis coming to the fore. Steve Vai has always been a law unto himself - and IS prog. So there.

I started another thread on "What is Prog" to help on this one - coz I really think that Diamond Head's "Living on Borrowed Time" IS prog. If IQ are prog, then so are DH

Damn right Zeppelin were progressive, in many ways - Whole Lotta Love being a prime example - and as for the Beatles... Man, Sergeant Pepper was the first prog album - the very first to use the Recording Studio as an instrument for starters! "Tomorrow Never Knows" off Revolver, and the White Album's "Revolution Number 9" are more prog than a lot of prog!

Slayer - well I was actually going to suggest them too, but really they just progressed a genre - the music they produced stayed well within the confines of Thrash Metal - defined it, even. You may as well try to suggest that Napalm Death were prog!

Mercyful Fate, Hmm. Raven - kinda, but no. Technically incredible, and boundary pushing but, much as I hate labels, still metal.

Check out Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets and Justice for All. They are definitely prog, IMNSHO

I know I go on a bit!

Cheers

Beatles (Abbey Road album face two, and even Sgt. Pepper's if you think it was made in 1967), ELO, Sting (yes, "Russians" song), Eels ("Novocaine for the Soul" song) and a very long list of poppy artist have been created some prog music. Why? Because, at least once in their careers, they decided to innovate trespassing the commercial limits. Of course, it isn't a merit enough to be considerated in sites like this, but innovation and the non-commercial interests could be a good definition for prog, beyond the sub-genre (pop prog, jazz prog, etc.).     

dude wrote: stormcrow:YEAH!! Journey had their "prog Moments"..not sure if they were cosistent though!!

They were not.  And the more Perry (pop rock genius that he might have been) influenced that band, the less progressive they became. To my increasing disgust and their increasing bank balances.

That is why I see the firing of Dunbar as the point at which they digressed into (although still very talented) just another hard-pop rock band.

Their first three albums (which very few people ever actually heard) still stand as good, entertaining examples of progressive fusion rock of the time.  It is no coincidence that that started to change on the hiring of Perry as a frontman for their 4th album.

raggy wrote: On the other hand the statement "I'm a prog fan, I like Diamond Head, ergo Diamond Head are prog." is ludicrous. Prog has its grey areas, but Diamond Head don't occupy any of them.

No-one said that.

Please give your reasoning why DH can't be considered prog rather than just stating that they're not - it looks like you've just said "I'm a prog fan, Diamond Head aren't prog, ergo Diamond Head aren't prog!".

It was DH that got me interested in prog, way back in 1980 - compared to the rest of the NWOBHM crop, these guys WERE prog, and regarded as genre-pushing gods in some circles.

I think they ARE prog because although the music has the surface sheen of typical 1980's NWOBHM, and the technical ability is only a little higher than average for that genre, there is something else - that magical "prog" ingredient that extends beyond the Rodney Matthews covers. Sean Harris' vocals are not the typical HM scream - they are considered, melodic, dramatic and exciting. There are no keyboards - maybe that is why DH are not prog?

Consider the album "Living On Borrowed Time". It features the famous "Am I Evil" - an 8-minute epic that does not fit comfortably into the HM mould.

A typical HM track follows typical pop song format with the notable exception of the extended guitar solo. Guitars tend to be heavily overdriven. It also tends to be about a testosterone-fuelled subject. Songs about evil are acceptable, but songs about far-off fantasy lands of old tend to dwell in the realms of prog.

Your typical HM track will not have time changes and key changes - especially to the extent that "Am I Evil" does.

When Metallica covered it as the B-side to their epic "Creeping Death" (for crying out loud - a 7 and a half minute single!), they left out most of the delicate light and shade that DH were more than capable of.

While agreeing that some of my other suggestions are borderline, I would like to see a GOOD reason why we couldn't consider Diamond Head as prog.

I truly believe they are.

And I'll stop harping on about it right now