A change of location needed?

micky wrote: I'll answer this while I toss my chicken and cook my salad.  Many 'modern' bands are but retreads of the same old sh*t from the 70's. In that  Radiohead and TMV.. though differently stylisticly are quite prog.  It may not be your daddy's prog.. .but it is prog all the same. damn....  my ice cream is boiling.. gotta run

I just wouldn't call Prog as you did.

And I must admit again that Radiohead and TMV (or MTV) both have something in their music, something that possibly makes them attractive for you, but I wouldn't say they're proper Prog bands, they're just Rock/pop bands that are certainly better than the average rock bands of today, ergo you're not forced to say they're Prog bands.

Micky is right from wherever you see it, PHP. The crossover team supposes to have expert guys on the matter (and I personally don't suppose that; I consider it as a fact), and you're far from being an expert in a music area you don't aprecciate and, according to your posts, also don't listen to enough to give strong arguments.

Simply, you cannot get Radiohead maybe as the average prog band uses to do with you and then you say they aren't prog at all. And that's valid and arguably, I also doubt their progressiveness, but the arguments you gave simply reveal your lack of knowledge about the band in question, like comparing them with Coldplay. Obviously, we all have different ways to get the prog and say how pure it is or not..... In other words, it's you alone against the crossover team, despite I'm with you in some points.

You've demonstrated a great knowledge in a huge lot of prog areas, but this time I think you're in a small boat.

sircosick wrote: Micky is right from wherever you see it, PHP. The crossover team supposes to have expert guys on the matter (and I personally don't suppose that; I consider it as a fact), and you're far from being an expert in a music area you don't aprecciate and, according to your posts, also don't listen to enough to give strong arguments. Simply, you cannot get Radiohead maybe as the average prog band uses to do with you and then you say they aren't prog at all. And that's valid and arguably, I also doubt their progressiveness, but the arguments you gave simply reveal your lack of knowledge about the band in question, like comparing them with Coldplay. Obviously, we all have different ways to get the prog and say how pure it is or not..... In other words, it's you alone against the crossover team, despite I'm with you in some points. You've demonstrated a great knowledge in a huge lot of prog areas, but this time I think you're in a small boat.

boat?.... maybe a rubber dingy perhaps.... and Dean and I ride in style in one of those supped up submarines with a bitchin sound system and... oh yeah....live nukes . .which we like to drop on the heads of those who displease us.  For the 100th time...  these  subs are not exact.. just a guide to help you stear your PROG listening tastes. 


Edited by micky - September 25 2007 at 21:54

sircosick wrote: Micky is right from wherever you see it, PHP. The crossover team supposes to have expert guys on the matter (and I personally don't suppose that; I consider it as a fact), and you're far from being an expert in a music area you don't aprecciate and, according to your posts, also don't listen to enough to give strong arguments. Simply, you cannot get Radiohead maybe as the average prog band uses to do with you and then you say they aren't prog at all. And that's valid and arguably, I also doubt their progressiveness, but the arguments you gave simply reveal your lack of knowledge about the band in question, like comparing them with Coldplay. Obviously, we all have different ways to get the prog and say how pure it is or not..... In other words, it's you alone against the crossover team, despite I'm with you in some points. You've demonstrated a great knowledge in a huge lot of prog areas, but this time I think you're in a small boat.

Thanks.

but em, I mentioned Coldplay or Oasis because they both are alternative, and both are what is known as brit-pop, so as Radiohead is, but this last band I admit it is a bit different from those I named.

I can appreciate music in many forms, just I can't like everything, we all have our own tastes, but just as a Prog dude told me there's music that is "useless", like some alternative bands like Portishead, I can agree with him in many points, so be aware that alternative isn't always good, it's rather just average and poor music, IMO, I don't find there much to like.
 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: P.H.P. wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Wow ... remind me to never take anything you say seriously again. Even on Pablo Honey Radiohead were like 10x more progressive than anything Oasis ever did - and don't get me started about Coldplay either. And of course Radiohead didn't stop there - it's their least progressive album. So Oasis is Prog then?!?! at least you're implying that, be careful you too with that kind of considerations hehe. I'm not implying that at all ... "progressive" is just an attribute of music ... a piece of music can be progressive and still not qualify to be called "prog" - or "prog-related". Also when I say that "x is more progressive than y" that doesn't imply that y is progressive ... in the above case it's kind of obvious that I don't consider Oasis to be progressive. P.H.P. wrote: So you're also saying that every Radiohead album is Progressive, well then you should also tell me when you're kidding and when you're not, because that remains a joke to me, really. I'm not saying that. Pablo Honey contains some remarkable songs with twisted time signatures and harmonic concepts that could not be found in any Oasis song (for example). This doesn't make the album prog, but it's still more progressive than Oasis.

I don't think radiohead are prog, relativity shouldn't come into it, there should be benchmark standards (although these can only be arbitrary as it's subjective in the end)

Also I don't know what anyone else thinks but if radiohead aren't in prog related then I think they would be better suited to post-rock/experimental, anyone agree?

Well to me post rock is taking the rock format and extrapolating it into longer mainly instrumental non-standard rock songs, almost ambient music with rock instrumentation (not to say that it excludes any other instruments).

Like any progressive sub-genre though the boundaries blur and there is always a lot of debate between what is and isn't in certain genres - the best way to get a grip of what defines post-rock is really to listen to a whole lot of post-rock bands, which is how I came to know.

I don't really mind where Radiohead are put to be honest I'm not a fan or active listener, and I don't think it's possible to give an exact definition of post-rock.


Edited by FruMp - September 29 2007 at 05:34

micky wrote: FruMp wrote: Well to me post rock is taking the rock format and extrapolating it into longer mainly instrumental non-standard rock songs, almost ambient music with rock instrumentation (not to say that it excludes any other instruments). Like any progressive sub-genre though the boundaries blur and there is always a lot of debate between what is and isn't in certain genres - the best way to get a grip of what defines post-rock is really to listen to a whole lot of post-rock bands, which is how I came to know. I havne't heard enough of it to form a defintion in my head... always been curious about it though. Anyhow... take a read of this...  explains better than I could our thoughts on Radiohead One of favorite albums... http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=33814 they stay Xover...

I agree, Radiohead are progressive in the sense they make what they like and it is different (or was when it was made).

OK Computer is a great CD.

FruMp wrote: I don't think radiohead are prog, relativity shouldn't come into it, there should be benchmark standards (although these can only be arbitrary as it's subjective in the end) Also I don't know what anyone else thinks but if radiohead aren't in prog related then I think they would be better suited to post-rock/experimental, anyone agree?

IMHO only Kid A qualifies as Post Rock/Experimental ... so: no, they would not fit in that category very well.

Radiohead?...

 Krautrock?...

sircosick wrote: FruMp wrote: Radiohead?...  Krautrock?... Check some wikipedia articles. I dunno that much about krautrock, but if you search there you'll find a few articles related, in which I'm sure I did read something about Radiohead influences..... say they took, certainly, influences from that sub-genre, specially Can.

Influences.

A lot of my favourite metal bands have jazz influences.