Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
DallasBryan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 23 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3323
|
Posted: June 10 2006 at 18:07 |
music from the 70's made under the influence of hallucenigenics and narcotics by semi-intellectuals which gave it a surreal sound that was in opposition to mainstream 60's music, influenced by the American psychedelic craze as it spread into europe.
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 10 2006 at 19:41 |
DallasBryan wrote:
music from the 70's made under the influence of hallucenigenics and narcotics by semi-intellectuals which gave it a surreal sound that was in opposition to mainstream 60's music, influenced by the American psychedelic craze as it spread into europe. |
While I'm sure that a fair bit was influenced by psychedelia, e.g. most Krautrock, Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, etc.,there was also a great deal of Prog where that influence is not particularly prevalent - if at all - e.g. Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant.
Prog generally can be seen as the antithesis of psychedelia, in that the long jams are replaced by "proper" compositions.
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
KazimirMajorinc
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 23 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 71
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 08:14 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Depends how you define sophisticated. |
Something that is not easily understendable, obvious, naive, something that require some experience or sensitivity to be recognized - relatively to other members of the genus (in this case rock). So, progressive rock <=> sophisticated (rock OR coming from rock tradition) AND (NOT already classified as part of the tradition recognized and accepted as opposite to progressive rock, like punk, new vawe or disco.) Surely, there are theoretical problems with that definition, but I think that is the definition we subconciously use in communication. Are there any good counterexamples around? Any recognized and accepted prog band not satisfying this definition? Any band satisfying this definition but not recognized and accepted as prog?
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 09:06 |
KazimirMajorinc wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Depends how you define sophisticated. | Something that is not easily understendable, obvious, naive, something that require some experience or sensitivity to be recognized - relatively to other members of the genus (in this case rock).So,progressive rock <=> sophisticated (rock OR coming from rock tradition) AND (NOT already classified as part of the tradition recognized and accepted as opposite to progressive rock, like punk, new vawe or disco.)Surely, there are theoretical problems with that definition, but I think that is the definition we subconciously use in communication. Are there any good counterexamples around? Any recognized and accepted prog band not satisfying this definition? Any band satisfying this definition but not recognized and accepted as prog? |
Actually, punk isn't the great opposite to Prog that the majority of people seem to tout it as - some punk bands, such as the Stranglers, were virtually Prog Rock bands - and some New Wave bands were way out there. Even some Disco had complex orchestral arrangements that could put some Prog Rock to shame.
As far as "not easily understandable" goes - that could apply to any music - especially music that you personally do not like.
As far as "obvious" goes, a considerable amount of Prog Rock seems very obvious to my ears - especially when a band deliberately tries to be Prog.
For example, what is not obvious about "In The Court of the Crimson King"? It's a rock song with clever arrangements, isn't it?
What about Dark Side of the Moon doesn't seem obvious when you listen to it? There are surprises, yes - but it doesn't require any experience or sensitivity to recognise it for what it is - and it's popularity is a testament to that.
I'm not saying that it's not a sophisticated work, but it doesn't fit your definition - hence Prog is not necesarily sophisticated, and this is a perfect example.
Or are you actually saying what I believe - that Prog could be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, given a reasonable set of boundaries?
Edited by Certif1ed - June 11 2006 at 09:07
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
Teaflax
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 09:34 |
I've always said that one of the greatest achievements in popular music
would be to write a song that is hideously complex yet incredibly
accessible and popular.
Which is why I admire smart Pop acts, because they can write tunes that
many people will like, but without using all too obvious formulae or
overdone methods.
Edited by Teaflax - June 11 2006 at 12:34
|
|
 |
KazimirMajorinc
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 23 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 71
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 13:17 |
Actually, punk isn't the great opposite to Prog that the majority of people seem to tout it as - some punk bands, such as the Stranglers, were virtually Prog Rock bands - and some New Wave bands were way out there. Even some Disco ...
|
That's what I'm saying, such works are not accepted as prog because they are part of the tradition percieved as opposite to prog rock.
For example, what is not obvious about "In The Court of the Crimson King"? ...
What about Dark Side of the Moon doesn't seem obvious when you listen to it? ...
I'm not saying that it's not a sophisticated work, but it doesn't fit your definition - hence Prog is not necesarily sophisticated, and this is a perfect example. |
Don't jump to the conclusion. If you think that these two songs are sophisticated, then you have no good counterexample for the claim that progressive rock=sophisticated rock.
Or are you actually saying what I believe - that Prog could be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, given a reasonable set of boundaries?
|
I wouldn't go that far.
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 17:00 |
KazimirMajorinc wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Actually, punk isn't the great opposite to Prog that the majority of people seem to tout it as - some punk bands, such as the Stranglers, were virtually Prog Rock bands - and some New Wave bands were way out there. Even some Disco ...
| That's what I'm saying, such works are not accepted as prog because they are part of the tradition percieved as opposite to prog rock.
|
OK, got you - the context made it look like you were still defining "sophisticated" to my skim reading...
KazimirMajorinc wrote:
For example, what is not obvious about "In The Court of the Crimson King"? ...What about Dark Side of the Moon doesn't seem obvious when you listen to it? ...I'm not saying that it's not a sophisticated work, but it doesn't fit your definition - hence Prog is not necesarily sophisticated, and this is a perfect example. | Don't jump to the conclusion. If you think that these two songs are sophisticated, then you have no good counterexample for the claim that progressive rock=sophisticated rock.
|
I didn't actually say that either of the pieces I mentioned are or are not sophisticated - I asked what about them was not obvious.
There is no counter to the opposite claim either - which is further justifying the suggestion I'm making, which is that the description you offered seems rather subjective and doesn't really describe Prog Rock.
As a very curious person, I'm just trying to make a bit more sense out of it.
Quick refresher:
KazimirMajorinc wrote:
Something that is not easily understendable, obvious, naive, something that require some experience or sensitivity to be recognized - relatively to other members of the genus (in this case rock). |
KazimirMajorinc wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Or are you actually saying what I believe - that Prog could be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, given a reasonable set of boundaries?
| I wouldn't go that far. |
OK, can you be more specific?
That could easily apply to many bands in the field of rock music that are not categorised as Prog, and the opposite could eaily apply to bands that are currently labelled as Prog Rock.
Ah, and you asked why the Ramones should not be considered Prog while the whole of Neo Prog is.
I suggest you find out by listening to Neo-Prog 24-7 for the next year.
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
Zweck
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 20 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 17:04 |
Well the Ramones do tend to be more interesting than all Neo-Prog bands I've heard.
|
 |
KazimirMajorinc
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 23 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 71
|
Posted: June 11 2006 at 21:19 |
Or are you actually saying what I believe - that Prog could be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, given a reasonable set of boundaries?
I wouldn't go that far.
OK, can you be more specific?
How can I be more specific? It is simply not what I'm saying.
|
 |
anotherpigfloyd
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 13 2006
Location: Costa Rica
Status: Offline
Points: 8
|
Posted: June 13 2006 at 12:18 |
I find prog everithyng tha have diferent tempos, moods, atmospheres, electronic instruments, and that is far away from mainstream rock format (verse,chorus, verse solo, chorus)
|
 |
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.