Print Page | Close Window

Should Captain Beefheart be considered prog rock?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=106365
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 12:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Should Captain Beefheart be considered prog rock?
Posted By: Affek
Subject: Should Captain Beefheart be considered prog rock?
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 14:25
Hello, fellow progers! It's my first post on this forum (and I hope not last). I've come across and interesting dilemma - should Cpt. Beefheart be considered as a progressive rocker? He considered to the genre like no other, but on the other hand his work is more blues oriented than progressive, with possible exception of Mirror Man, but it's still more bluesy jam than a progressive suite. I think of him as a blues musician who just happened to influence progressive music with his avant-garde pieces like Trout Mask Replica or more refined Lick My Decals Off, Baby. I'm sorry if it's been discussed dozens of times, I'm interested in your opinions. And I really apologize for any mistakes in this text, as I'm no native English speaker.



Replies:
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 14:31
There's just as much jazz in his music as blues; it's probably his singing style which makes you think the music is more bluesy than it is. I think his most stereotypical 'proggy' stuff was his last three albums which have very little blues influence and incorporate synths and Mellotron.


-------------
Magma America Great Make Again


Posted By: Affek
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 14:44
Well, his singing style adds to the overall bluesy feel, but I think that most of his early stuff is a little psycheldelic blues, while it gets more jazzy and avant-garde (cheesy rock too, but we all want to forget about that) with time. But his last three albums, which you mention happened long after prog rock was dead and smelling funny.


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 14:45
Even Trout Mask Replica has plenty of avant-garde jazz riffs of the Ornette Coleman / Don Cherry style to qualify as prog rock. He was certainly unique in his approach but definitely belongs here IMHO


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 14:50
Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

Well, his singing style adds to the overall bluesy feel, but I think that most of his early stuff is a little psycheldelic blues, while it gets more jazzy and avant-garde (cheesy rock too, but we all want to forget about that) with time. But his last three albums, which you mention happened long after prog rock was dead and smelling funny.


Every album doesn't have to qualify as prog for inclusion here and I agree his earliest stuff wouldn't let him in the club but before you decide he should have his membership revoked I suggest you check out his crazier albums while reading the guidelines for inclusion. He checks off every attribute on the list . BTW prog never died. It just took a little snooze


Posted By: Affek
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 14:57
You might be right; I didn't get interested with late stuff, dropped off around Bat Chain Puller, as his albums are nearly unavailable here. I always had the impression of Cap'n being just a avant-blues musician, who was claimed as a prog rocker by the critics. Got a little confused because of it, so came here to talk over this. Don't want to get off topic by talking about how alive prog rock is, but my personal opinion is that it was always about pushing boundaries further and further, and the last one was pushed by the punk revolution in late seventies, so there is no need for prog nowadays. But it's just my opinion.


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 16:46
Yes.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 17:17
At the same time 'prog' was supposedly dying, the Captain was one of the few trying to keep it alive. He didn't get rich doing it and finally just gave up. BTW he was an influence on punk.






-------------
Magma America Great Make Again


Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 19:00
I think the good Captain would definitely belong here.  If nothing else you could argue Trout Mask Replica was RIO/Avant and Doc at the Radar Station was eclectic prog...especially the mellotron drenched Sue Egypt Wink

I'd be shocked if Beefheart hasn't already been nominated in the "Suggest New Bands" forum.


-------------
https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987


Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 21:05
Errmmm...  http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1471" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1471


-------------
--
Frank Swarbrick
Belief is not Truth.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 21:53
Originally posted by infocat infocat wrote:

Errmmm...  http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1471" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1471

Oh sure, he may be listed on this site as RIO/Avant prog, but he should be listed under REAL PROG.LOL


-------------
...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...


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 22:22
Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

You might be right; I didn't get interested with late stuff, dropped off around Bat Chain Puller, as his albums are nearly unavailable here. I always had the impression of Cap'n being just a avant-blues musician, who was claimed as a prog rocker by the critics. Got a little confused because of it, so came here to talk over this. Don't want to get off topic by talking about how alive prog rock is, but my personal opinion is that it was always about pushing boundaries further and further, and the last one was pushed by the punk revolution in late seventies, so there is no need for prog nowadays. But it's just my opinion.

That's why the forum is here! We're happy to assist you in your prog reference needs :) I have never looked but i assume everything (minus the most obscure) is available for your listening pleasure on YouTube these days. 

As far as prog pushing boundaries, you do have a point. I have seen many a claim especially by Guldbumsen that prog isn't the most cutting edge anymore but it has become more of an ossified subgenre of rock. True dat but it is still enjoyable to listen to. That's just the nature of anything new. It appears, it blows minds and then becomes part of life. Meanwhile something totally unexpected does the same. There will never be another 70s prog explosion IMHO but there is still plenty of excellent music that takes old ideas and new to create clever new ways of experiencing things as never before. By all means, please don't submit to snobbery! Prog still has plenty of oompf in its soul :)

BTW where do you reside in Poland? I have been there multiple times pretty much in every corner of the country. One of my favorite countries in Europe actually :)



Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: April 03 2016 at 22:50
Beefhart is more Jazz than Blues and stranger still than any of that. I definitely don't know why being bluesy would be grounds for rejection from the Prog ranks. There's lots and lots of blues throughout well accepted Prog acts, Steve Hackett being one of them. Beefhart's childhood friend, Frank Zappa, was another. Jade Warrior was another. It varies in dosage, but it's pretty ubiquitous.




-------------
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)


Posted By: Affek
Date Posted: April 04 2016 at 02:33
HackettFan, he ceritanly is stranger than anything, Trout Mask Replica is one of the reasons I think Beefheart should be classified as prog - this album pushed boundaries of what rock music is capable of further than anything else. But on the other hand, Safe As Milk is a straightforward blues, which wasn't as progressive as, for example, This Was by Jethro Tull, which had some hints of what was going to happen with the band in near future. Zappa was rather grounded in doo-woop, but his work was progressive from the beggining. I think that calssifying Van Vliet as Avant-prog is very suitable for him.
Silly Puppy, I find listening to music from any other source than physical butchering. And I live in the central Poland, nice country to visit, but not so to live in ;).


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 04 2016 at 04:14
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

Beefhart is more Jazz than Blues and stranger still than any of that. I definitely don't know why being bluesy would be grounds for rejection from the Prog ranks. There's lots and lots of blues throughout well accepted Prog acts, Steve Hackett being one of them. Beefhart's childhood friend, Frank Zappa, was another. Jade Warrior was another. It varies in dosage, but it's pretty ubiquitous.


The distinction is whether Blues is the main defining characteristic of the music or not. Since Blues formed the foundation for Rock Music in general (12-bar, 16-bar, scales, chord progressions, etc.,) then scratch beneath the surface and you'll find traces of the Blues everywhere.


As I have said before, Progressive Rock was a conscious shift away from the Blues leaving other bands to pursue the Blues Rock route. This divergence of Rock and Blues Rock began in the naissant Psychedelic Rock/Underground scenes of the late 60s with Blues Rock being the initially more successful branching on both sides of the Atlantic. Without getting into pointless who-was-first and who-invented-Prog arguments, the fusion of Jazz, Folk, Classical, Avant Garde and Ethnic music into Baroque Pop/Psychedelic Rock (that soon became recognised as Progressive Rock) took hold in the UK and quickly spread throughout Europe while in the USA Blues Rock fused with native blues-based musical genres (Jazz, Country & Western, Bluegrass, etc.,) and became the dominant post-Psych genre. 

However, because even in the 1960s and 70s Music crossed the Atlantic at 2/3rds the speed of light both these forms of music were known of, and even popular to some degree on both sides of the Pond. But even then European Blues Rock bands were more successful in the USA than their compatriot Progressive Rock artists whereas in Europe they co-existed as two separate but equally popular genres. This is reflected in the paucity of 60s and 70s USA artists listed in the PA, which is not the result of any anglo-centric or euro-centric bias (as some would claim) but a stoic observation of how it was back then. Left-field artists such as Zappa and Beefheart are exceptions that prove the rule because they are not Blues Rock in the accepted meaning of the term even if they used Blues in their music. That we regard them as being part of the Progressive Rock movement (or scene) due to the avant garde jazz nature of their music.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is curious to note that  the number of actual Progressive Blues and Progressive Blues Rock artists is so small that they aren't generally recognised as specific genres of music anywhere. (notwithstanding Johnny Winter and The Groundhogs, both of whom used the Progressive Blues tag in 1968/9 but it wasn't widely adopted; or artist like Steve Miller who progressed Blues Rock outside the boundaries of the Blues format).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However, I take a philosophical view of these things, while there are some artists here that I don't personal consider to be Progressive Rock I recognise that other people see things differently. I may put a case against the inclusion of suggestions that I don't regard as being part of the Progressive Rock canon, (and would use the predominance of Blues as part of that exclusion argument), and then leave it to others to make the counter argument, but win or lose I accept the final outcome without protest. Though [Zappa and Beefheart were] added to the PA before I joined, I would not have argued against their inclusion.



-------------
What?


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: April 04 2016 at 11:11
A truly progressive musician if you ask me. His stuff is more progressive than many others on this forum.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 04 2016 at 13:00
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

A truly progressive musician if you ask me. His stuff is more progressive than many others on this forum.

Certainly a 'progressive' musician in the way he approached blues rock and much of his music is more 'progressive' than other bands here .........but I don't think he's prog rock. 
But then I don't think some of the other bands like The Who, Led Zep, Blue Oyster Cult...etc really need to be here either but we have all had this discussion before......haven't we?

btw...I'm a fan of the Captain.

Wink


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: jazz2896
Date Posted: April 04 2016 at 20:57
I certainly wouldn't consider him prog-rock.  His music was certainly progressive, but I always thought of it as more just straight up avant-garde rock.  Of course that delves into the whole "avant-rock is progressive rock" argument, but I would never describe the good Captain to a newcomer to his music as "progressive rock".  That being said, him being in Avant/RIO is the most fitting place on this forum.


Posted By: EddieRUKiddingVarese
Date Posted: April 05 2016 at 03:01
Yes is prog

-------------
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!


Posted By: resurrection
Date Posted: April 05 2016 at 16:15
no


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 06 2016 at 09:56
Hi,

Goodness ... I must be getting old ... I only have one Capt album and it is a later one ... Moonbeams and Bluejeans ... or something like that ... it's very nice stuff ... "Observatory Crest" ... and such, but all in all I think of him as just another balladeer and singer. I think of this stuff as "personal", and as such, I'm not sure that many of these folks think of a musical style at all ... 

If we think he is "progressive", pretty soon we have to say that Bob Dylan is as well, by having introduced electric guitar to folk music that at one time was considered a sin, and worse. Times are different, and were different, and I sometimes think that influences are not as clear as we might think, even if this or that are around. But for someone in the LA area, to not think of blues or rock, or latin music ... is a bit weird, but then, even Hollywood movies were not that influenced by that for their movies ... so there is something else happening, that shows an independent and a very different spirit. 

I like his poetry like delivery. it's very nice, and maybe it is just that ... music for his poems?


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Affek
Date Posted: April 07 2016 at 11:38
"Moonbeams..." and the second 1974 one (don't remember its name, sorry) are usually regarded as a disgrace to Captain's music, as they bear no resemblence to his earlier and later stuff. They are like "Under Wraps" for Jethro Tull.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 07 2016 at 22:59
Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

"Moonbeams..." and the second 1974 one (don't remember its name, sorry) are usually regarded as a disgrace to Captain's music, as they bear no resemblence to his earlier and later stuff. They are like "Under Wraps" for Jethro Tull.
 
You are probably thinking of 'Unconditionally Guaranteed' and those 2 are considered weak albums but there are a few decent tracks on them.
 
Beefheart was so odd in the way he combined various musical elements and poetry  he almost deserves a category of his own.
LOL


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: April 12 2016 at 14:29
Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

Should Captain Beefheart be considered prog rock?

Like thousands of bands and artists on PA I don't think many members consider Beefheart to be  "prog rock" as such. But that's not really a criteria to be added to one of the site's many sub genres. So its not really that much of a dilemma.

That said compared to various progressive acts in the archives like Klaus Schulze, Codona, Aranis, Art Zoyd, Oregon, Dead Can Dance to name a few... The Captain undoubtedly rocks, and more often than not with a progressive approach.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 09:17
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

Should Captain Beefheart be considered prog rock?

Like thousands of bands and artists on PA I don't think many members consider Beefheart to be  "prog rock" as such. But that's not really a criteria to be added to one of the site's many sub genres. So its not really that much of a dilemma.

That said compared to various progressive acts in the archives like Klaus Schulze, Codona, Aranis, Art Zoyd, Oregon, Dead Can Dance to name a few... The Captain undoubtedly rocks, and more often than not with a progressive approach.

I kinda think of people like this, as "progressive" as an artist, even though as a musician they aren't. I mean, the same thing can be said about Bob Dylan, whose words we can just about quote from a song or two, and yet the music, for us? ... heck we remember Jimi's version better than any of Bob's songs, see?

In my way of thinking, Bob is progressive in his "expression", which makes it progressive when stacked against a pop music world, and a top of the pops world, which in a funny sort of way, even the PA is, although not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination!

It's like saying that Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen are "progressive", and they are, in their expression, not the music they use to back up much of their own poetry and words. And I think this is a side of this definition that may need to get cleaned up a bit, because there are a lot of bands that fall into this area (XTC comes to mind) because of their "individuality" and how they express themselves.

This, is, (usually) valuable and important in Europe, that has a literary history of hundreds and hundreds of years, and there has always been a "lesson" in those studies ... the expression is important. But the world of top of the pops and is not interested in "expression", only in the sales and was the song a hit or not. 

I just think we have to get past the "sales" and get onto the meat of the subject ... and then make a good/better call ... but I can see why folks like the Captain, and even XTC would be such a problem ... you can't define anything, because it's got it all and none of it at the same time.


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 11:04
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

Should Captain Beefheart be considered prog rock?

Like thousands of bands and artists on PA I don't think many members consider Beefheart to be  "prog rock" as such. But that's not really a criteria to be added to one of the site's many sub genres. So its not really that much of a dilemma.

That said compared to various progressive acts in the archives like Klaus Schulze, Codona, Aranis, Art Zoyd, Oregon, Dead Can Dance to name a few... The Captain undoubtedly rocks, and more often than not with a progressive approach.

I kinda think of people like this, as "progressive" as an artist, even though as a musician they aren't. I mean, the same thing can be said about Bob Dylan, whose words we can just about quote from a song or two, and yet the music, for us? ... heck we remember Jimi's version better than any of Bob's songs, see?
That really, really, really ... Ermm ...really, really isn't what "progressive" means. 
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

In my way of thinking, Bob is progressive in his "expression", which makes it progressive when stacked against a pop music world, and a top of the pops world, which in a funny sort of way, even the PA is, although not a bad one by any stretch of the imagination!
That really, really, really ... Ermm ...really, really isn't what "progressive" means. 

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

It's like saying that Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen are "progressive", and they are, in their expression, not the music they use to back up much of their own poetry and words.
That really, really, really ... Ermm ...really, really isn't what "progressive" means. 
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

And I think this is a side of this definition that may need to get cleaned up a bit, because there are a lot of bands that fall into this area (XTC comes to mind) because of their "individuality" and how they express themselves.
That really, really, really ... Ermm ...really, really isn't what "progressive" means. 

What we need to "clean up" (more that a ruddy "bit") is all the silly misappropriation of the word "progressive". Stern Smile
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

This, is, (usually) valuable and important in Europe, that has a literary history of hundreds and hundreds of years, and there has always been a "lesson" in those studies ... the expression is important. But the world of top of the pops and is not interested in "expression", only in the sales and was the song a hit or not.
That really, really, really ... Ermm ...really, really isn't what "progressive" means. 
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

I just think we have to get past the "sales" and get onto the meat of the subject ... and then make a good/better call ... but I can see why folks like the Captain, and even XTC would be such a problem ... you can't define anything, because it's got it all and none of it at the same time.
That really, really, really ... Ermm ...really, really isn't what "progressive" means. 


-------------
What?


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 12:31
^ So Dean......please tell us what 'progressive' really really really means.
 Wink





-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 12:33
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

^ So Dean......tell us what 'progressive really really really means.
 Wink



I think I've expounded on that sufficiently over the past 9 years to make further pontification somewhat unnecessary. Tongue


-------------
What?


Posted By: Cosmiclawnmower
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 15:43
Oh go on though.. for those of us who haven't (for whatever reason) caught your transmissions on the subject.. (and, no, I'm not being sarcastic, I really would be interested to know)

-------------



Posted By: EddieRUKiddingVarese
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 18:43
Beefheart is  prog rock, particularly Trout mask Replica and other early Beef albums
 
I get tied of those who think Prog rock is the domain of early 70's British bands


-------------
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 22:48
Originally posted by Affek Affek wrote:

HackettFan, he ceritanly is stranger than anything, Trout Mask Replica is one of the reasons I think Beefheart should be classified as prog - this album pushed boundaries of what rock music is capable of further than anything else. But on the other hand, Safe As Milk is a straightforward blues, which wasn't as progressive as, for example, This Was by Jethro Tull, which had some hints of what was going to happen with the band in near future. Zappa was rather grounded in doo-woop, but his work was progressive from the beggining. I think that calssifying Van Vliet as Avant-prog is very suitable for him.
Silly Puppy, I find listening to music from any other source than physical butchering. And I live in the central Poland, nice country to visit, but not so to live in ;).
I forgot to look in with this thread for awhile. Let's see if I am possibly confused or not. There is no actual "Prog" classification on the site. An artist is considered as Prog if they're classified under one of the Prog sub genres. Beefheart is RIO/Avant Prog, therefore he is Prog. As I understand it, it only takes one album to ratify an artist for inclusion. Safe As Milk would not disqualify him anymore than the album, Blues With a Feeling, would disqualify Steve Hackett. Perhaps the question should be reframed as 'which Beefheart albums are progressive?' I actually don't agree with your assessment of Tull's This Was. I don't hear any hints of Prog at all on that album. I might throw in that I also don't hear any hints of Prog on the first Genesis album, as probably most would agree. I don't see what difference this makes. Zappa was progressive from the beginning because he managed to get the freedom to be so from the producers. My understanding is that Beefheart didn't have that freedom until Trout Mask Replica. He got it then because it was produced by Zappa, and Zappa provided that freedom.

I do appreciate this thread topic, though. Welcome to the forum!

-------------
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: April 15 2016 at 23:06
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

Beefhart is more Jazz than Blues and stranger still than any of that. I definitely don't know why being bluesy would be grounds for rejection from the Prog ranks. There's lots and lots of blues throughout well accepted Prog acts, Steve Hackett being one of them. Beefhart's childhood friend, Frank Zappa, was another. Jade Warrior was another. It varies in dosage, but it's pretty ubiquitous.



The distinction is whether Blues is the main defining characteristic of the music or not. Since Blues formed the foundation for Rock Music in general (12-bar, 16-bar, scales, chord progressions, etc.,) then scratch beneath the surface and you'll find traces of the Blues everywhere.


As I have said before, Progressive Rock was a conscious shift away from the Blues leaving other bands to pursue the Blues Rock route. This divergence of Rock and Blues Rock began in the naissant Psychedelic Rock/Underground scenes of the late 60s with Blues Rock being the initially more successful branching on both sides of the Atlantic. Without getting into pointless who-was-first and who-invented-Prog arguments, the fusion of Jazz, Folk, Classical, Avant Garde and Ethnic music into Baroque Pop/<span style="line-height: 18.2px;">Psychedelic </span>Rock (that soon became recognised as Progressive Rock) took hold in the UK and quickly spread throughout Europe while in the USA Blues Rock fused with native blues-based musical genres (Jazz, Country & Western, Bluegrass, etc.,) and became the dominant post-Psych genre. 

However, because even in the 1960s and 70s Music crossed the Atlantic at 2/3rds the speed of light both these forms of music were known of, and even popular to some degree on both sides of the Pond. But even then European Blues Rock bands were more successful in the USA than their compatriot Progressive Rock artists whereas in Europe they co-existed as two separate but equally popular genres. This is reflected in the paucity of 60s and 70s USA artists listed in the PA, which is not the result of any anglo-centric or euro-centric bias (as some would claim) but a stoic observation of how it was back then. Left-field artists such as Zappa and Beefheart are exceptions that prove the rule because they are not Blues Rock in the accepted meaning of the term even if they used Blues in their music. That we regard them as being part of the Progressive Rock movement (or scene) due to the avant garde jazz nature of their music.
I wholeheartedly agree with every bit of this. Including the following, which could have been as if I wrote it myself:
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...I may put a case against the inclusion of suggestions that I don't regard as being part of the Progressive Rock canon, (and would use the predominance of Blues as part of that exclusion argument), and then leave it to others to make the counter argument, but win or lose I accept the final outcome without protest. Though [Zappa and Beefheart were] added to the PA before I joined, I would not have argued against their inclusion.


-------------
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: February 19 2018 at 03:02
Absolutely yes.

-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: February 19 2018 at 03:51
I feel myself just stupid that I jump into this thread, but anyway I have never thought Beefheart as a prog. I don´t believe he himself never related to his music into any prog bands, maybe to Zappa, but on other hand when you know how their "friendship" was really complex...I really just don´t want to define Beefheart, but if I had to, I think he´s music is very unique mix of blues, avant & jazz. And I am not going to continue this, this is so uninteresting.

Naturally I think he´s much greater than most prog artists.

And I haven´t read the earlier posts, propably saying something somebody has already said.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk