Prog - integral part of rock/metal?

reality wrote: Progressive rock was a movement from 1967 to about 1975 just like grunge was in the ninteys, it had its run and then died out only to be followed by retro bands and 70's sympathisers. The fact that a band is on this site does not make them prog, but if you strictly conformed to the rules there would be 500 bands instead of 2000 something. Not all bands that are complex, use poly rythoms, use pseudo-classical structures or have 20 minute songs are prog, just like not all new bands that combine punk\alternative\metal riffs are considerd Grunge (except on a grunge web site). Sigur Ros is not prog nor did they ever intend to be, the outside world calls them Postrock or whatever term they will come up with for the new movement. They do not deserve the baggage of being labeled "dinasauor music" or a saviour of a long dead movement. They are most influnced by technology and current culture just like "prog" was in the seventys; when that technology and culture changes so does the music and it does not maintain the same points of referance. Stop retro labeling bands! The term prog is claiming bands that it does not have the right to claim! There is no historical precedent to justify this practice of genre oreintated name dropping.

The cannon of what is considerd "prog" was closed with the change of culture and technology in the mid to late seventys just like the cannon of grunge was closed in about nintey three. Anything original and innovative (non retro) past that point is something else and not prog. To be prog (or grunge, girl group, psycadelic, big band, punk etc) it has to fall with in the exclusive precepts of the cannon that was established. Green day is not punk just like Destinys child is not a 60's girl group but they are closer to those labels than Sigur Ros is to prog. The retro band The Flower Kings although from the ninteys is prog because they fall into the statutorial cannon of prog and copy the formula of a seventys band even to the outdated technology. New Prog bands are easy to spot because they fly their seventys flag high and have very little social and cultural relevence or impact (just like the go tee, flanel wearing grungers dont matter anymore). Notice that is why the term "dinasaur" is applied to prog because the culture that inspires it is over thirty years old. Just like a son should not live under the shadow of his father, new music should not be condemed to the pathways of the old, especaily if it has very little relation to it. Prog as a fresh music is dead, but that does not mean you cannot still enjoy it, but do not make it what it is not. No one can exclusivly claim complexity or lenghth of songs as a form of music, many other forms of music have these but are not "prog", nor should they be. Its arrogance, denile and ignorance that make people claim new music (non retro) as prog. It is not just new music, Ive seen people on this site claim all Jazz is prog, classical music is prog, African rythmic drumming as prog are these the people you want to get your info from? Prog is exclusive and specific and that is where it recieves its glory.  Enjoy the past (prog) but live in the futer (new and exciting catagories, genres and cultural movements).

No they are not. Sigur ros is Post Rock which is a genre that comes from the indie scene, and has very little relation to prog. Some will mention the tie with Krautrock but that is slight rather post rock has much more of a tie with dream pop\shoegazer of the early ninties. Originally applied to the band Tortoise The Post Rock term is slowly becoming as unusable as prog, but for now it is an apt term to describe Sigur Ros (as well as GSYBE!, Mogwai etc.) Bottomline they are Post Rock and not prog. But who cares anyway, if you like them listen to them. I would hate to meet the person who was so shallow that they would stop listining to them because they are not prog! Enjoy and keep listening to glorious Post Rock. 

Edited by reality - May 10 2006 at 21:40