Good news for Certif1ed, Radiohead has been added to the site, making them Officialy Prog.

Congratulations to all. And many thanks to Certif1ed who made such a great case for them

Though feelings on Radiohead seemed to be inconclusive and appeared to lead to a stalemate - indesisive draw. Radiohead pulled it of to become one of the memorable additions to this site.

no official response from Radiohead itself is made so far, but rumour goes they've got the corks off of the Bubblies.

Knowing they'll be heading for obscurity we hearbye appologies to all not-prog fans of Radiohead, for dragging them into the realm of prog, from which there is no escape.

A final quote from Radiohead frontman Thom York

"They're all uptight, uptight, uptight, uptight, uptight, uptight."

I guess it's because they come up for discussion so often - but I'm a bit confused as they're listed as * Radiohead * and it's not easy to find them in the archives...

The discography is a little scant too, as is the biography.

Oh well, I'd better get in touch with their manager, who was in the year above me at my school...

 OOOHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Does that mean we have to talk about the 7/8 bit in 'Paranoid Android'?

I'm eagerly awaiting your reviews Cert.

Ok Radiohead is in, when are we going to include the Bee Gees?

Iván

Certif1ed wrote: You don't have to - in fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't

It would be my pleasure not to, Cert

Here's my review!

Reed Lover wrote: Here's my review!

well Iván, please elaborate on this

[QUOTE=Eddy]. we gotta keep the stuff out\. if not, this sight might very well turn into a popish site!!!!!!!!!!!

Well not quite, but Maani's sending smoke signals for when the current incumbent croaks...

Kid A is Prog, as is Radiohead now as a concept band, but they are special prog. I've said it before, there is such thing as pop prog.

Gaston

Useful_Idiot wrote: Well, I've given my review of Ok Computer for you all to enjoy...

great review

Reed Lover wrote: If Radiohead is prog,my name is Iván Melgar-Morey.

Threefates wrote: Reed... I did not give you permission to use my ELP graphic... so please remove that or Ivan, my lawyer, will be serving you papers shortly.... .

Err... that would be me!

hdfisch wrote: tuxon wrote: Good news for Certif1ed, Radiohead has been added to the site, making them Officialy Prog. Congratulations to all. And many thanks to Certif1ed who made such a great case for them Though feelings on Radiohead seemed to be inconclusive and appeared to lead to a stalemate - indesisive draw. Radiohead pulled it of to become one of the memorable additions to this site. no official response from Radiohead itself is made so far, but rumour goes they've got the corks off of the Bubblies. Knowing they'll be heading for obscurity we hearbye appologies to all not-prog fans of Radiohead, for dragging them into the realm of prog, from which there is no escape. A final quote from Radiohead frontman Thom York "They're all uptight, uptight, uptight, uptight, uptight, uptight."  I really don't support the idea to "make" RADIOHEAD a prog band because it IS just not one.So now there is a genre called "Psychedelic Alternative Rock" and they are listed as this plus PROGRESSIVE ROCK.So what?They are both or is it the same?Who will be the next: Oasis?Pulp?Muse?Franz Ferdinand?Robbie Williams?Maybe Britney,someone could try to discover some PROG elements in her music (or in her behavior). I don't say that RADIOHEAD is doing bad music, they are for sure much much better than all the artists I mentioned but in their genre and this is ALTERNATIVE ROCK!!!Nothing against this kind of music, I listened to it as well 5-10 years ago until I realized there are also bands existing in the 90s,not only in the 70s making good PROG.It's just because this kind of music is much more popular than PROG and less complex, easy to listen,not necessarily bad for these reasons but really f******* irrelevant to someone who is seriously interested in demanding and "pretentious" music. Sorry to say but IMHO the addition of Radiohead marks somehow the beginning of the end for the PROGARCHIVES.The site will end up in a general forum for ROCK MUSIC and will not deserve its name anymore in future and for me personally it will be not so much relevant and interesting anymore as it used to be.

Wow! I have to admit i'm surprised they got in but I wonder if you have really listened to Radiohead? How can you say that Kid A or Amnesiac is just ROCK! Radiohead is not easy listening in fact they are constantly accused of being pretentious! They push the boundries of electronica and rock combined,they are pasionate and complex,listen to Idioteque and Treefingers from Kid A and say that isnt innotive, every one of their albums are creative and intricate and their lyrics are meaningful set on a theme and evocative...bah i just love them! So maybe i'm biased ..

Ive been listening to Cluster all night ...hmmmm they really should get in too, DB maybe right...

Not only do you like Radiohead, but you keep mentioning the Texan t**ser!

You got a thing for Dallas Cowboys?

Reed Lover wrote: Not only do you like Radiohead, but you keep mentioning the Texan t**ser! You got a thing for Dallas Cowboys?

I think he is quite amusing and he has a love of German bands, but saying that I have to read his posts about 4 times before I understand what he means, and even then i'm not entirely sure...

Texan Words of Wisdom
The Cowboys' Practical Philosophy

There are three kinds of men -- The ones that learns by readin', the few who learns by observation, and the rest of 'em just have to piss on the electric fence for themselves..

When you give a lesson in meanness to a person or critter, don't be surprised if they learn the lesson.

You can't make someone love you. All you can do is stalk 'em and hope they panic and give in.

If you find yerself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'

What ever they told you -- you are naked if you're wearin' nothin' but a hat.

Never miss a good chance to shut up

This is the picture of himself that he posted in the Rogues gallery Thread:

Texan Limo

Haha ..what are you both doing up at 2am anyway??

Can't sleep?

Drooling over the Texan too eh?

I think he's got a way with words.

At least he got away with them for the time being

BTW I don't drool, I salivate

Heh! Well in the words of Radiohead i'm gonna EXIT

You can laugh
A spineless laugh
We hope that your rules and wisdom choke you
Now we are one
In everlasting peace

We hope that you choke.. that you choke
We hope that you choke.. that you choke
We hope that you choke.. that you choke

G'night

tuxon wrote: Texan Words of Wisdom The Cowboys' Practical Philosophy There are three kinds of men -- The ones that learns by readin', the few who learns by observation, and the rest of 'em just have to piss on the electric fence for themselves.. When you give a lesson in meanness to a person or critter, don't be surprised if they learn the lesson. You can't make someone love you. All you can do is stalk 'em and hope they panic and give in. If you find yerself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin' What ever they told you -- you are naked if you're wearin' nothin' but a hat. Never miss a good chance to shut up

Don't forget to  listen to both kinds of music country and western!

Chill on the DB bashing guys.

Radiohead should NOT be here in the Archives.

This site is losing its ingetrity by the day.

gdub411 wrote: Radiohead should NOT be here in the Archives. This site is losing its ingetrity by the day.

Utter nonsense.

If the Admins decide Radiohead are in, then they SHOULD be in.

This site has GAINED integrity by recognising that prog rock is not anything and everything that sounds like Yes, Genesis or King Crimson.

Bands that simply raid the back catalogue are simply NOT progressive - they are regressive; isn't that obvious? Plus ca change,

Bands that simply are made up of people that used to be in prog bands don't necessarily play prog music - agreed?

But bands that use REAL musicianship to push then envelope of music into interesting and new directions, ignore traditional song structures, chord progressions and lyrical content should at least be given a chance.

The Pink Floyd comparison is fair. There are similarities between OK Computer and DSOTM in non-obvious as well as obvious areas - but there are intelligent people on this site, so I'll let you work it out.

To say that OK Computer is "Indie" is rubbish; The term "Indie" means that the music is released on an independent label. Parlophone is NOT independent, TTBOMK. Otherwise the Beatles were Indie...

And to say that the style of music is "Indie" or "Alternative" (I know what the terms are commonly used to mean...) is not to have listened properly or given the music enough time to sink in. Like the best prog albums, OK Computer can take a while for the hidden agendas to sink in. One of the biggest problems it faces is that so many tracks have been released as singles by a record company hungry for profits, and it has sold huge numbers due to its accessibility.

These are not crimes, and the music is good and progressive.

There are other bands FAR less deserving in the archives, so for God's sake, give Radiohead a break - they probably don't want to be among proggers any more than some of you want them here. But the truth is that their music is among many styles that constitues modern day prog.

I find it VERY hard to accept Dream Theater as prog, when all they seem to do is recycle Metallica, Yes and Joe Satriani material. Their music is more metal than prog. GET THEM OUT!!!

Tell me why Radiohead is here:

A) Because their music is rather simplified altrernative with a little synth to give it atmosphere

B)amateurish, simple,  redundant lyrics

C) They're English so why not.

I totally support it.

Radiohead is a rock band >> They have pushed the limits, exanded their sound in multiple ways>> they always challenge the listener (except the very first album, that is) >> they continue to PROGRESS, making cerebral, inventive, adventurous music = Sounds like a prog band to me. They are in the true spirit of prog moreso than a lot of other bands included in the archives.

I"m not going to make excuses for the alterna-geeks and trendies who listen to them, as I thought they successfully shook the pop/alternative pinup boys tag on OK Computer and have been defying the mainstream ever since. Just think of all the preps, jocks and fratboys who listen to Pink Floyd, but they're still prog, no? (I've met a few cool jocks and fratboys, but you know what I mean...)

I agree!

Radiohead should not have been added.

Don't get me wrong, I love OK Computer, but it's just not prog rock.

philippe wrote:   ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!!

I am 100% with Philippe on this one.

Great - they should be here.

Progressive rock = rock that progresses.

Music that moves, is restless, questing, inventive, seeks radical forms of expression. You can open up all the other pigeonholes you wants - angst rock, sadcore, alternative, blah,blah,blah - Radiohead are one of the most interesting, genuinely progressive rock bands out there.

I'll give you a comparison - 90% of neo-prog which slavishly re-enacts the finer moments of Genesis, Yes, KC et al like some kind of geeky historical recreation society or

Radiohead who started out life as an run-of-the-mill post-Grunge 'alternative' band and became, with OK Computer the progenitors of a music being emulated by thousands of wannabes the world over.

Taking elements of grunge, classical, jazz, krautrock, electronica Radiohead pushed their own musical boundaries and those of their audience with some of the most intelligent, questioning music of the '90s and early 21st century. OK Computer is a masterpiece of real progressive music. Anything by Echolyn, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, yadda yadda yadda is a sad facsimile of a bygone era by comparison. Listening to them is like listening to Lenny Kravitz ripping off the Beatles, Zeppelin, Bob Marley, the Isley Brothers etc etc etc. Booooring.

Some have suggested that Radiohead are not 'prog' because they don't have great solos, or long songs, or are not virtuoso musician.

Oh please!!! Grow up! Is this really the criteria by which we judge progressive music. If that is the case then  Yngwie Malmsteen is the prog equal of Yes - great technique, long songs and endless solos. Yet we know that Malmsteen is just another over-schooled plank-spanking egomaniac whose entire musical output is the aural equivalent of a long and draining bout of dysentery.

 Pink Floyd (with the exception of Gilmour) were not great musicians and they're prog. Genesis, certainly on Tresspass and Nursry Cryme are not technically proficient.

Is it because Genesis used mellotrons? Radiohead have 'em - all over OK Computer. Is it because of an envelope-pushing love of technology as ELP had? Check out Kid A and Amesiac's use of sequencers and Jonny Greenwood's obsession with theremins, ribbon controllers and a battery of effects that would make Emerson green with envy.

Yeah, we all love classic prog but surely we're all about making some progress. Why shut yourself in a room with the same couple of hundred albums and only open the door when a record which sounds like a sonic photocopy of same comes calling.

You can clap your hands over your ears and scream 'elpgenesisyeskingcrimsonrush' till you're blue in the face, but the music world is not going to stop evolving or go away.

The classic rock the flat-earthers here are so keen to protect was born out of a melting pot of jazz,classical and rock idioms that were popular in the late 60s early 70s. What the hell is wrong with making 'progressive' music utilising the building blocks of dance, electronica, lo-fi, krautrock, classic prog, ambient, grunge, indie-rock whatever. It's progress. Take the sounds around you an use 'em, it's all music, it's all there to be enjoyed.

Say hello to Godspeed You Black Emperor, Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Tortoise, Fourtet, whoever you like.

These, not the sad and weary, drab and dreary neo-prog or prog-metal copycats, are the future of progressive music. Deal with it and welcome them on board.

Three cheers to those who made the decision to include Radiohead, the most innovative and genuinely progressive rock band of the last 10 years.

arcer, thank you so much for such an intelligentpost.  While I'm not completly one way or the other with them being on the site, I have realized two things....

1).  Some people need to get off the 70's prog hig horse and open their ears.  If you think that the only good prog was in the 70's, then I guess that prog rock is truly dead, adn that Punk won (Something I hope NEVER happens.)

2).  To those who are happy with this, take it and don't ask for more.  I don't want to start seeing polls in the forum for Muse or whatever other english rock bands that even REMOTELY sound progressive to be added to the site. (no deference to Muse, I love the stuff they do, keep up the good work

I'll finish with this:  Progressive Rock= rock that progresses, as arcer put it soo well.

Reed Lover wrote: philippe wrote:   ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!! I am 100% with Philippe on this one.

Reed, you've made at least 50 posts in this thread just saying "Radiohead shouldn't be here."  We get it.

alan_pfeifer wrote: arcer, thank you so much for such an intelligentpost.  While I'm not completly one way or the other with them being on the site, I have realized two things.... 1).  Some people need to get off the 70's prog hig horse and open their ears.  If you think that the only good prog was in the 70's, then I guess that prog rock is truly dead, adn that Punk won (Something I hope NEVER happens.) 2).  To those who are happy with this, take it and don't ask for more.  I don't want to start seeing polls in the forum for Muse or whatever other english rock bands that even REMOTELY sound progressive to be added to the site. (no deference to Muse, I love the stuff they do, keep up the good work I'll finish with this:  Progressive Rock= rock that progresses, as arcer put it soo well.

Your post is totally contradictory IMO.So Muse dont play "rock that progresses" - since when?

Any group that plays Progressive Rock as their definitive style should be here.

This is utterly fantastic!!! What controversy!!!

First, can I say a huge

YAH BOO SUCKS!!!

To all those who seem to actually take offence that a band that is infinitely MORE prog than many of the bands in the archives are finally here. As arcer says - grow up, why don't you? I don't understand why Reed thinks that the Radiohead following are such "bully boys" when we've taken a pasting from the stick-in-the-muds everytime the name of the band is mentioned.

It gives me great pleasure to shred a few of the negative posts:

Gdub:

A) Because their music is rather simplified altrernative with a little synth to give it atmosphere

You really haven't listened, have you? (and you can't even spell alternative, so I wonder if you know what it means). Or are you talking about Hawkwind?

B)amateurish, simple,  redundant lyrics

I mean, you REALLY haven't listened! (or rather, read the lyrics - because it's quite difficult to make them out sometimes...). There are soooo many prog bands whose lyrics are amateurish and simple, while Radiohead's are deeply complex and minimal. To take your argument further, you would probably think that Webern or Philip Glass are amateurish composers because they subscribe to minimalism. It's the perfect antidote to overblown maximalism (if there is such a thing), and a large part of neo-prog, which is why so many fans of the early 1970s groups don't get neo-prog.

C) They're English so why not.

Good call!

Metropolis:

I can and have actually identified the exact Metallica riffs that Dream Theater stole on "Images and Words", for example - and if you really think that all Metallica do on "...And Justice for All" is play the same riff for 8 minutes, then you haven't listened to it at all. My knowledge of metal music is probably a little broader and deeper than you might think...

Dream Theater's style on "Images and Words" quite simply IS NOT PROG. Got that? It isn't. Never will be. Not prog. Nope.

Whatever your opinion, I think it's wrong to say that Dream Theater are more prog than Radiohead, because the style of music is so totally different. It's like comparing Pink Floyd to Rush.

Joren I will ignore, because he doesn't think Pink Floyd, Marillion or Genesis are prog - so he clearly hasn't got a clue what prog is.

Philippe From most of your past posts, I would have to assume that you only listen to complex music - please remember that prog is not necessarily complex - it is PROGRESSIVE. There is a difference

[
We hope that you choke.. that you choke
We hope that you choke.. that you choke
We hope that you choke.. that you choke

repetitive lyrics

I think they suck....they suck

I think they suck....they suck

I think they suck....they suck

I can spell alternative and as if you have never made typos before.

Useful_Idiot wrote: Reed Lover wrote: philippe wrote:   ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!! I am 100% with Philippe on this one. Reed, you've made at least 50 posts in this thread just saying "Radiohead shouldn't be here."  We get it.

Actually most of my posts on this thread should probably be under the heading of:

"Why DallasBryan shouldnt be here"

As for Cert:

To me, the fact that Radiohead have been included despite a majority seemingly to be against it, suggests that someone has won through methods other than concensus.You yourself have tried to "bully" all argument saying Radiohead arent prog. Not wanting to continue a debate for fear of half a screens worth of pro-Radiohead bluster, is being bullied in my opinion.

Not I - I do not bully.

I make salient points - and the fact that I pay attention to detail means that it takes me more than one or two words to make my points.

I have tried to draw reasoned and rational arguments from the anti-Radiohead crowd, who seem to have the single argument "Radiohead aren't prog". Well, that's convinced me!!

NOT!

If you're afraid of debate, then the intelligensia have won, IMO.

Gdub - WTF has repetition got to do with something not being complex?

The reason Radiohead are here is because the site Admins have decided they should be - that is something I at least have as much say in as any other member of this site; Our voices are heard and registered, and appropriate action is taken.

If I had anything to do with it, then Queen would be there before Radiohead, quickly followed by Metallica - who have done more to progress metal than any other band. THEN I would have added Radiohead... although having re-listened to OK Computer today, I am utterly convinced that it is a prog album in the true spirit of prog.

It needs time to find that out - come back in 5 years

Reed, it appears that there is a reasonably even divide between those who consdier Radiohead to be Prog-ressive and those who are stuck in a 70s timewarp

might I suggest that this is just one 'post-rock' band that has been admitted - there are still hundreds of hammond and mellotron-bashing, loon-panted goons still out there to satisfy even the most ardent flat-earth progger.

Neither should the inclusion of Thom Yorke and his angsty cohorts be regarded as "the thin end of some kind of 'modernist' wedge".

Somebody mentioned Muse - they should definitely not be considered for inclusion.

The reason? Cause they're sh*te  

Seriously, Coldplay (despite a dollop of Floydiness), Muse, Keane, and the rest of the Radiohead lite bands should never be included simply because their music defies the key component in the prog equation - it does not progress, it's static, reflective (in the bad sense of the word) and fleeting. Some of it's good - Coldplay - some of its mawkish, wussy, girly rubbish (Keane) and some of it is just melodramatic keening (Muse) but none of it is progressive.

Certain 'modern', 'avant-garde', 'post-rock' bands will inevitably get included in the archive but why is that worse than some dreadful gurning prog-metals poltroons being added? Some of us come to prog on a jazz tip, some with an American aor sensibility (DB), some from metal, some with a classical bent and some from a European art-rock (and by that I mean Roxy, Bowie, Eno etc) school.

I don't agree with it, but I can understand why some people think awful metal band Dream Theatre should be included, personally I think 'awful' post-rock band Radiohead merit inclusion too.

I mean, ultimately, man, why can't we just all live together in peace....won't someone think of the children!......

Philippe - I think I read you incorrectly before, so I take back my original comments...

That was brilliant sarcasm and biting wit - well said!!!

Eliot Mangybitch or whatever his/her name is should be shot for never having spent the time to listen to those bands before making such a STUPID comparison...

Green Day and the Chemmys... Oh yeah, they sound the same... Bleedin' techno bands

philippe wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=7066"> * RADIOHEAD * - Ok Computer Review by Eliott Minkovitch @ 7:34:33 AM EST, 1/16/2005   —   This kind of stuff should not be on this site, I hope someone will wake up and remove it. Since when did alternative rock become progressive rock? You might as well add Green Day, Chemical Brothers and other techno-crap. And oh, throw in David Bowie too. And why not Oasis or Nirvana?   ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!!

This is not a review, and thoughts like this should be expressed on the forum and not added as a review, of course that's merely my opinion.

Having said this, shouldn't there be a possibility on the site to review the artist, so besides the summary provided by the progarchives, a submit review part added to that, so these kinds of reviews make more sense and it is easy to see how good a band is or how they are looked upon by the reviewers.(star-ratings added aswel)

just a thought of course.

frenchie wrote: this site has fallen apart. Great band and all but they are not prog, now who knows what bands are gonna be added here, and voivod? NO! prog my arse. i am very angry at this after we had a petition of whether they shud be allowed on and more people said NO! so what do they do? f**king add them to the site!

Proof that nobody here takes the question of 'what is prog' too seriously.

And if Voivod isn't prog, neither is Rush.

Just a thought, but it's interesting that only "OK computer" has been added, and it appears in bold in the discography on the band page.

Will the rest follow....or not?

I believe Max has the last word and he should decide if a band is added or not, but in this specific case of Radiohead there was a poll, and 55 members gave their opinion:

Poll Question: Should Radiohead be in the archives? Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics Yes 15 [27.27%] No 40 [72.73%]

 72.73% of the people here doesn't believe Radiohead should be in the Archives (almost 3 of each 4), I believe this result deserves some attention.

The only other page I consider in the level of ProgArchives is GEPR and they don't include it, so I believe there was no hurry in including them.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: I believe Max has the last word and he should decide if a band is added or not, but in this specific case of Radiohead there was a poll, and 55 members gave their opinion: < name=frmPoll =poll_cast_vote.asp method=post> Poll Question: Should Radiohead be in the archives? Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics Yes 15 [27.27%] No 40 [72.73%]  72.73% of the people here doesn't believe Radiohead should be in the Archives (almost 3 of each 4), I believe this result deserves some attention. Iván

You DO know that the poll system on here is flawed, and it's easy for people to vote multiple times, right?  All you have to do is log out and then log back in.

Useful, to be honest I didn't knew it, but even if it's true, this works for the two sides.

Iván

By the way Useful I just logged Out and logged in again to verify what you swaid  and I'm not allowed to vote again.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: By the way Useful I just logged Out and logged in again to verify what you swaid  and I'm not allowed to vote again. Iván

Really?  I was just able to do it with the Dream Theater thread (although it only worked once).  I'm also pretty sure that if you vote from a different computer it will let you vote again.

frenchie wrote: please remove radiohead from the site max and maani!!! the people have spoken, the poll is direct proof. i am really angry at this move because before there was a strict prog only policy when people were suggesting bands like radiohead, whats going on?

Just because you don't consider them prog doesn't mean they aren't...

No Useful, just because 72% of the people here and all the serious prog' pages or enciclopedias (GEPR, Progressor, etc) don't consider them progressive, that's the reason.

Iván

Give it up people - there are hundreds of bands on the archive - a lot I don't agree with but I'm not screaming about it like a bunch of schoolgirls. It's one band for heaven's sake!

and they are progressive

Robert Fripp doesn't consider King Crimson prog, but that hasn't stopped anybody...

And arcer is right.  Chill the f**k out.

y'see, people get upset cause they're a band that makes bold, radical statements and pushes the envelope just like ELP.....

DOH!!!!!! get 'em out by Friday!

aqualung28 wrote: Well they're in so there's no chance of removing them. But for the love of Prog put Fantomas in!

Haha, you're pretty obsessed with Fantomas getting in here aren't you?  Although I agree that they should be in, and I actually submitted a biography for them way back when incase they get added.

arcer, they're an experimental metal band fronted by Mike Patton (of Faith No More, Mr. Bungle, etc).  Their debut is a concept album, and their new one Delirium Cordia is one 74 minute song.

I've always thought the biggest problem that some prog fans have is that they are insular and elitist. This thread has confimed this for me.

We should praise mainstream bands who stick their necks out and try to develop into something more challenging and progressive. Radiohead have certainly done this from the straight forward rock of Pablo Honey to the difficult to listen to (on first few hearings) Kid A and Amnesiac.

It would have been so easy to have stayed in the comfort zone created by OK Computer but Thom Yorke is far too inventive and realised that it would mean the end for Radiohead.

I have only come to this site in the last year and found groups like Voivod and Opeth who I was listening to in the 90's thinking they were thrash metal and found them to be included, on reflection I can see why they are included and don't have a problem with this.

A couple of years ago I remember Steve Hogarth on the radio comparing Marillion to Radiohead. Where does that leave the argument? Do we say that Marillion have gone in the opposite direction?

I cannot think of a current band that deserves the title of progressive rock more, even if they don't like the idea themselves.

Well, they deserve it!

I thought now might be as good a time as any to start trying to get Fantomas in here. (Though my poll was largely ingored)

frenchie wrote: if radiohead are in then that gives bands like muse, doves and elbow an equal chance cos they have the same amount of prog elements. but they dont get to be in so why shud radiohead? at the rate we're going AC/DC will be added next! There has always been a strong wall between what is prog and what isnt and now that wall has been broken so tonnes of bands that have a slight prog element will probably be let in now. they must have known that this would cause tonnes of controversy yet they went against what the people of this archive want and added them anyway. i thought it was reli respectful of them not to add them after the months and months of debate and now that they have i have lost faith in this site.

You've lost faith in this site just because they added one band (a band you like, I might add) who you don't think should be in here????  As I said earlier, calm down!!!

What sets Radiohead apart from bands like Muse and Doves is that if you can find a Muse song that reaches the epic heights of Paranoid Android or Climbing up the Walls, or pushes the enevloppe of modern music in the way that Kid A did as an album, then I've evidently misjudged Muse greatly.  Same goes for the Doves.

Where did AC/DC come from?  Surely you must admit that RH at least has more prog merrits than AC/DC...

Aqualung, Muse is pretty much Radiohead without the daring experimentation that makes Radiohead so great.

okay aqualung i just checked out their website - Mike Patton, cool -  sounds like they're worth investigating.....

BTW - If Fantomas are prog, Mike Patton guested on vocals on the last Bjork album Medulla, Thom Yorke guested on vocals on Bjork's Dancer in the Dark soundtrack, therefore the conclusion is ......

Bjork is prog!!!!! Quick start a poll to get the wonky-voiced icelandic loony on the forum now!!!!

I also voted for Fantomas, amazing band.

But back to the point, Sweetnighter did you said a Punk band can play Progressive music???

Punk was born suposedly to destroy what progressive did to music, they did music based in 2 or 3 chords, they can't play progressive rock unless they do a cover album.

By the way, Progressive Rock is a genre, if not we lost most of our live until now. 

Goose, you said: "try and equate Yes, ELP, Rush, Jethro Tull and Tangerine Dream!" they are different, that's why there are sub-genres like Symphonic. Neo Prog', Folk Prog, Fusion, Canterbury, Prog' Metal, etc.

Useful, you said: "Where did AC/DC come from?  Surely you must admit that RH at least has more prog merrits than AC/DC..."

Of course, anybody has more prog merits than AC/DC but that means nothing.

Iván

arcer wrote: okay aqualung i just checked out their website - Mike Patton, cool -  sounds like they're worth investigating..... BTW - If Fantomas are prog, Mike Patton guested on vocals on the last Bjork album Medulla, Thom Yorke guested on vocals on Bjork's Dancer in the Dark soundtrack, therefore the conclusion is ...... Bjork is prog!!!!! Quick start a poll to get the wonky-voiced icelandic loony on the forum now!!!!

Hahaha, I think someone actually brought up the idea of Bjork being prog awhile back.

Speaking of Icelandic musicians who should be on here, I'm still waiting on Sigur Ros...

Me too and don't forget Mum!!!! they're all brilliant and a lot more innovative than flippin' Dream Theatre

ivan_2068 wrote: But back to the point, Sweetnighter did you said a Punk band can play Progressive music??? Punk was born suposedly to destroy what progressive did to music, they did music based in 2 or 3 chords, they can't play progressive rock unless they do a cover album.

This is true in theory, but if you need proof that there are punk bands who go beyond it, download the song "Marquee Moon" by Television (which clocks in at over 10 minutes and has extended soloing that would make Yes jealous) or "The Decline" by NOFX (which clocks in at nearly 20, and has tons of different sections that sound totally different from each other, and even some soloing).  Or listen to The Mars Volta, who have a strong punk aspect in their music, but are undeniably prog.