Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre. It is a time period. It is transitory. You are "underground" until you are not. When the music you compose is evidently so good and interesting that it piques the public's attention, then a performer reaches a critical mass of fans and listeners that literally propels them into the vacuous term "mainstream" (as in, "hey, I've sold enough albums that I can actually eat").
To quote a line from a definitely non-underground band, "What were vices are now habits." What was once "underground" is now "mainstream". I will quote a composer who, in all sense of the word, was "underground", but who rose to prominence and hence was no longer "underground," Igor Stravinsky, from his Poetics of Music In the Form of Six Lessons:
"I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself...The tone of a work like the Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established convention would beknown as revolutionary."
Sh*t happens. All the time.
Underground music is a meta-genre that encompasses a wide variety of genres, including progressive rock. These subcultures and genres were frequently established with genuine enthusiasm by talented artists. Performers in this meta-genre stay apart from the mainstream music scene. Consequently, underground music encompasses musical styles and subgenres that are rarely heard on the radio. Regardless of the experimental styles of jazz, weird electronic music, progressive rock, or other genres, these kinds of music are referred to as "underground music."
I was willing to play along, Svetty, really, I was. But when you plop in another sock puppet into this thread out of nowhere just to try to bolster your inane need to segregate music into your little bins of musical iotas, then it's time to move on.
"Underground music" is only "underground" until it is not. It is not a distinct genre, never has been, never will be. "Radio" no longer exists as a viable medium to measure musical acceptance. Who the f*ck listens to radio anymore?
When I was a pre-teen and teen growing up in the Detroit area in the late 60's and early 70's, FM radio stations broadcast the subversive, the non-mainstream, the "underground" music of the time. Whole albums, album sides and live broadcasts. Sometimes even in quad. By 1975, these station ceased to broadcast the unique and revolutionary, and had become, in essence, "classic rock" stations. But for a time in my formative years, I got to hear King Crimson, The Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, MC5, Iggy and the Stooges and a host of other bands mainstream radio wouldn't touch. I stopped listening.
But I am uninterested in your multiverse of musical meta-nonsense. Nor do I care to discuss your bin approach to compartmentalizing music into incomprehensibility. Never have been. And please, don't start posting endless streams of YouTube vids of old Yugoslav bands.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Why is 🌎onio always acting so weird? All the sockpuppet accounts, alter egos, strange behavior. My guess would be that he might have some kinda autism spectrum.
On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became. Ernest Vong
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
If the boundaries of the fields of underground and mainstream are that fluid, it would mean that artists can go from the underground to the mainstream, earn some money, and then return to the underground. However, this is not the case. An underground musician can collaborate with songwriters to create mainstream music with reminiscences of their underground stuff., and then book mainstream shows with the help of a management team to make their songs radio-friendly, get their music licenced for movie and television show usage, and even advertise. Underground musicians have the option of hiring a producer to change their sound and take it in a more popular direction. But this is selling out, and then there's no going back; they never return to the underground.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre. It is a time period. It is transitory. You are "underground" until you are not. When the music you compose is evidently so good and interesting that it piques the public's attention, then a performer reaches a critical mass of fans and listeners that literally propels them into the vacuous term "mainstream" (as in, "hey, I've sold enough albums that I can actually eat").
To quote a line from a definitely non-underground band, "What were vices are now habits." What was once "underground" is now "mainstream". I will quote a composer who, in all sense of the word, was "underground", but who rose to prominence and hence was no longer "underground," Igor Stravinsky, from his Poetics of Music In the Form of Six Lessons:
"I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself...The tone of a work like the Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established convention would beknown as revolutionary."
Sh*t happens. All the time.
Underground music is a meta-genre that encompasses a wide variety of genres, including progressive rock. These subcultures and genres were frequently established with genuine enthusiasm by talented artists. Performers in this meta-genre stay apart from the mainstream music scene. Consequently, underground music encompasses musical styles and subgenres that are rarely heard on the radio. Regardless of the experimental styles of jazz, weird electronic music, progressive rock, or other genres, these kinds of music are referred to as "underground music."
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
That's Svet for you.
So I've come to learn. Creating a new account after less than 80 posts as ProgExpo, followed by "Thanking" all his own comments - and then backing himself in the comment section - now as PeterO. I guess he knows no one else is gonna support his inane takes. It's pathetic. I'm going back to ignoring him as I've done several times to previous accounts of his.
Edited by Saperlipopette! - February 11 2024 at 12:52
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
If the boundaries of the fields of underground and mainstream are that fluid, it would mean that artists can go from the underground to the mainstream, earn some money, and then return to the underground. However, this is not the case. An underground musician can collaborate with songwriters to create mainstream music with reminiscences of their underground stuff., and then book mainstream shows with the help of a management team to make their songs radio-friendly, get their music licenced for movie and television show usage, and even advertise. Underground musicians have the option of hiring a producer to change their sound and take it in a more popular direction. But this is selling out, and then there's no going back; they never return to the underground.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre. It is a time period. It is transitory. You are "underground" until you are not. When the music you compose is evidently so good and interesting that it piques the public's attention, then a performer reaches a critical mass of fans and listeners that literally propels them into the vacuous term "mainstream" (as in, "hey, I've sold enough albums that I can actually eat").
To quote a line from a definitely non-underground band, "What were vices are now habits." What was once "underground" is now "mainstream". I will quote a composer who, in all sense of the word, was "underground", but who rose to prominence and hence was no longer "underground," Igor Stravinsky, from his Poetics of Music In the Form of Six Lessons:
"I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself...The tone of a work like the Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established convention would beknown as revolutionary."
Sh*t happens. All the time.
Edited by The Dark Elf - February 11 2024 at 12:25
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
That's Svet for you.
I love how lively the Sufjan discussion has gotten, even moreso than at Folk. Mike, I simply didn't suggest him to Crossover initially as I thought he would get a chilly reception. I certainly wouldn't mind reading what they, or Logan in Prog-Related, ultimately think before proceeding over at PF, where we are trying to convince Hugues to join us and make the decision unanimously.
Adding artists like Sufjan Stevens to a progressive rock database means only further diluting the Progarchives as such.
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
That's Svet for you.
I love how lively the Sufjan discussion has gotten, even moreso than at Folk. Mike, I simply didn't suggest him to Crossover initially as I thought he would get a chilly reception. I certainly wouldn't mind reading what they, or Logan in Prog-Related, ultimately think before proceeding over at PF, where we are trying to convince Hugues to join us and make the decision unanimously.
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
If the boundaries of the fields of underground and mainstream are that fluid, it would mean that artists can go from the underground to the mainstream, earn some money, and then return to the underground. However, this is not the case. An underground musician can collaborate with songwriters to create mainstream music with reminiscences of their underground stuff., and then book mainstream shows with the help of a management team to make their songs radio-friendly, get their music licenced for movie and television show usage, and even advertise. Underground musicians have the option of hiring a producer to change their sound and take it in a more popular direction. But this is selling out, and then there's no going back; they never return to the underground.
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
music does not progress. If the music were to progress, it would mean that it was going somewhere. Any musicologist will tell you that this is not the case.
I don't think I can agree with this. All music progresses from the start to the finish. But some music is perceived to portray a strong sense of motion, while other music can sound quite static.
An example of a track with a strong sense of motion ("groove") is Jeff Beck - Air Blower:
An example of a section of music which sounds almost static is Van der Graaf Generator - Presence of the Night (section from A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers):
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
^You're comical in pretending that you know a thing of two about
something that you
clearly don't. You obviously have no qualms postualting strong opinions
backed by nothing but superficial knowlegde. I'm reading all your posts
here from now on with this in
mind.
^ No never to you he will I suppose. But I never cared much for strong, uninformed opinions anyway (I haven't labeled him as Progressive Rock myself, btw). If you removed PoiL and replaced it with Napier's Bones from
England not much would change. I agree. You would still come across like you don't know what the hell you're talking
about - and that it's blatantly obvious that you have no idea whatsoever
about the musical contents of any of the albums I challenged you to
listen to. Because that's the only possible reason for reducing Sufjan Steven's body
of work to those of an indie-folker (it doesn't even cover particularly well the
albums I'm guessing you're somewhat familiar with).
Edited by Saperlipopette! - February 11 2024 at 04:43
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
The distance of artistic positions between Sufjan Stevens and, e.g., PoiL, is roughly the same as the distance between some easy rockers from Lauryl Canyon and, e.g., The Plastic People of the Universe from 1968 Prague.
No need to compare with PoiL
Ok, let's imagine that I remove French underground band PoiL from the example and put Napier's Bones from England. What changes? Nothing. Sufjan Stevens is never going to be progressive rock.
And he doesn't need to be progressive, because he is an indie folk-rock star, and a progressive tag doesn't mean a badge of honour.
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
The distance of artistic positions between Sufjan Stevens and, e.g., PoiL, is roughly the same as the distance between some easy rockers from Lauryl Canyon and, e.g., The Plastic People of the Universe from 1968 Prague.
No need to compare with PoiL because I never did. But you can come back and let me know if you still think Sufjan Stevens is purely an American indie folk-rock artist, after you listened to a handful of these albums of his: Meditations, Lamentations, Revelations, Celebrations, Incantation, Reflections, The BQE, The Age of Adz, Planetarium, The Decalogue, Aporia, The Ascension, Enjoy Your Rabbit... etc...
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
The artistic distance of genre-wise positions between American indie-folk star Sufjan Stevens and, e.g., a French progressive band like PoiL, is roughly the same as the distance between some 60's easy rockers from Laurel Canyonand, e.g., The Plastic People of the Universe from 1968 Prague.
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
Using a
mainstream/underground
divide that makes very little sense
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid,
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
Using a
mainstream/underground
divide that makes very little sense
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote 
Topic: Progressive Indie?
Topic Options
PeterO. wrote: