Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Progressive Indie?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Progressive Indie?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Saperlipopette! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 12730 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Saperlipopette! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:34
Originally posted by Gordy Gordy wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Originally posted by ProgExpo ProgExpo wrote:

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
Back to Top
PeterO. View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: February 11 2024
Location: Elgaland-Vargal
Status: Offline
Points: 3 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeterO. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:39
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by PeterO. PeterO. wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by ProgExpo ProgExpo wrote:

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.

Originally posted by The Dark Elf 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.

Originally posted by ProgExpo 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."
Back to Top
Hrychu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 03 2013
Location: poland?
Status: Offline
Points: 5818 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Hrychu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:40
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.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13309 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 11 2024 at 13:17
Originally posted by PeterO. PeterO. wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

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...
Back to Top
allmediareviews View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: February 09 2024
Location: MN
Status: Offline
Points: 3 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allmediareviews Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 11 2024 at 15:23
Semantics arguments go figure.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.123 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.