Radiohead

Well, "Consumatum Est" Radiohead is in, hope nobody has the bright idea to include Bjork, Coldplay or ELO.

Iván

Mars Volta, widely considered one of the new emerging prog bands, has combined progressive and punk/emo influences in a unique and interesting way

Mars Volta is a Prog' band that mix some punk elements, that's clear. Progressive Rock usually mixes elements of different genres, but that's not the case you presented before.

A progressibve band will use any element of any genre to create a different sound, that's their nature and one of their main characteristics. But Punk is basicly take rock to it's simplest form, so mixing elements of other genres is not their nature, if they do so, they stop being punk.

azz came from crossing african rhythms and european compositional artistry.

Jazz wasn't created to destroy African or European music, it's a blend of both, Punk was created to destroy Prog'.

Iván

Well, "Consumatum Est" Radiohead is in, hope nobody has the bright idea to include Bjork, Coldplay or ELO.

Iván

Hey Aqualung, if you follow with that I will ask Max to remove my vote for them

Iván

frenchie wrote: i wish maani or m@x would say something about this, i think i would let it go after hearing the reasons why they put radiohead in but at the moment i am outraged

Yeah, I'd be interested to hear how this came about as well.  Max, are you out there?

Sweetnighter wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: [QUOTE=ivan_2068]But back to the point, Sweetnighter did you said a Punk band can play Progressive music??? Punk was born suposedly to destroy what progressive did to music, they did music based in 2 or 3 chords, they can't play progressive rock unless they do a cover album. This is true in theory, but if you need proof that there are punk bands who go beyond it, download the song "Marquee Moon" by Television (which clocks in at over 10 minutes and has extended soloing that would make Yes jealous) or "The Decline" by NOFX (which clocks in at nearly 20, and has tons of different sections that sound totally different from each other, and even some soloing).  Or listen to The Mars Volta, who have a strong punk aspect in their music, but are undeniably prog.

Musical categories (a concept of concern more to critics and fans, than artists), like musical tastes in general, are highly fluid and subjective. What I call disco, you may label funk, what I call repetitive, agressive, posturing crap, you may call rap. Whatever.

I'm not sure just how I'd classify Television, but I'd never say punk. For the record, I have put them on my "new wave" -- whatever that means -- compilations. How about just good ROCK?

When I want to review an album on the Archives that I don't really consider to be prog, I review it as MUSIC, plain and simple, and give it a fitting "star" rating that does not necessarily bow to the artificial constraints of the descriptions appended to those ratings. Those words are someone else's, and fit their definitions, not mine, and are subjective as well: "a masterpiece of progressive rock" -- what the heck does that mean? "Masterpiece" is a subjective term, and there seems to be roughly as many conceptions of "progressive" as there are members here.

These debates, with, for example, some pleased to welcome Radiohead to the Archives, others outraged, and still more indifferent, will never, ever end.

Get over it: write your reviews, state your opinion, but don't look for consensus -- it's IMPOSSIBLE.