Petition to take Radiohead off Progarchi
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3066
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 17:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Petition to take Radiohead off Progarchi
Posted By: the musical box
Subject: Petition to take Radiohead off Progarchi
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 08:44
sh*t... i leave for a few days and all hell freezes over. Well, let the people SPEAK!!! Lets get this demon off our beloved site!! ------------- something pretentious |
Replies:
Posted By: Captain Fudge
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 08:51
|
Well now, I wouldn't say that m'dear... ------------- 
Teenage sucks hard -- Emo sucks even harder Epic. Simply epic. |
Posted By: Captain Fudge
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 08:51
Canadians are weird! -------------
Teenage sucks hard -- Emo sucks even harder Epic. Simply epic. |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 08:59
|
^ because of course im being ENTIRELY serious ------------- something pretentious |
. It is true then, Romanians dont have a sense of humour!
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 09:09
|
OK Computer IS a prog album as much as Dark Side of the Moon. The Admins agree. Leave it alone and shut the f**k up.
Please?
|
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 09:27
Accualy Cert, the reason the admins added them is because theyre sick of people like you f**king complaining about them " being prog" all the time. Just because you like something DOES NOT make it prog....God... If they were prog they would have been added ages ago! I think we should also add Primus and Steely Dan too ------------- something pretentious |
Certif1ed wrote:Posted By: aqualung28
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 11:30
|
I say we can leave it if we never add a band like them again. So, on that note, I think we should add......well, you know what I want added Fantomas ------------- "O' lady look up in time o' lady look out of love 'n you should have us all O' you should have us fall" "Bill's Corpse" By Captain Beefheart |
Posted By: felixxx
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 11:40
 |
Posted By: Sweetnighter
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 11:43
too much salt can't we all just... get along?  ------------- I bleed coffee. When I don't drink coffee, my veins run dry, and I shrivel up and die. "Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso? Is that like the bank of Italian soccer death or something?" -my girlfriend |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 13:31
Talk about a conspiracy theory! I'm sure the Admins consider every addition very carefully in order to maintain the right level of integrity, hence some bands take longer to consider than others. They have no need to justify their decisions - although many of them seem questionable to many members of this site. We are free to discuss those decisions here in the forums though - that is one of the purposes of them. Just because I make strong arguments, it does not follow that I "complain about them " being prog" all the time." - indeed, I do not - I just take that side of the fence in ANY discussion about them because that's what I think - and I'm entitled to my opinion as much as anyone. I'm sure that if you could find some strong argument as to why either Primus or Steely Dan should be included, and the subject came up often enough, that it would be noted. Just saying you think they are prog is not a very convincing argument - anyone can say stuff like that. The "complaints" have all come from the anti-brigade, but so far there has been no reasoning or anything persuasive other than the extreme reactions to the "controversial" decision. I find it very interesting that I have managed to provide strong arguments about the music itself, while the best the anti side can come up with is either "Not prog" or "Indie" - neither of which are true, IMO, and both of which are very weak and provide no reasoning whatsoever. Please take a little time to read my review to see what I think are pretty concrete facts - and feel free to come back and discuss the salient points. Please also note that I earlier "attacked" the post, NOT the person making the post Finally: Please could you stop the noise, I'm trying to get some rest |
Posted By: Velvetclown
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 13:36
|
Perhaps we should have a petition about removing the musical box from the archives ? ! ------------- Billy Connolly Dream Theater Terry Gilliam Hagen Quartet Jethro Tull Mike Keneally |
Posted By: Petra
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 13:49
|
Bit of an over- reaction all this. I'm with Cert and regarding admin 'They have no need to justify their decisions' ------------- Don't hate me I'm not special like you |
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 14:22
| Indeed, it's the admins' call. There are many borderline cases already in the archives (Talk Talk, Rain Tree Crow, Supertramp, Alquin to name a few), so its not like this comes out of the blue. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 14:23
|
I'm with you Cert, and with all who consider Radiohead prog for that matter. My musical knowledge is insufficient to explain why they are prog in my book, but they where catagorised as such (By me) ever since OK Computer. The structure of the songs, the structure throughout the albums (OKC, KIDA, HTTT), the level of symphonising/minimalistic and the transferance in the songs between different structures, the way they use bridges and all make them prog IMO (not a good founded argument maybe, but it's the best I can do It is true that they originated from alternative rock, with hints of garage-rock and pop-influences (Nirvana, Oasis, Kula shaker, Live, etc spring to mind). And I don't know how they consider themselves. Can anyone please explain me why Paranoid Android isn't a prog-song. I know in order to be included on the archives the majority of their output has to be considered prog, and it has to be made in a consious way etc. I think Radiohead has proven those things in the past.
To all the Nay-sayers, you're right on the point that the danger excists that we'd be stretching the meaning of prog when we include all borderline cases, but we are the ones that keep asking "can we include *artist-name* in the archives, for we think they are prog". This forum is the best place to discuss these kind of things, and I think mailto:M@x - M@x and Ron are very capable of making the final discission in these matters.
For the ones who feel Radiohead was moved forward on the list of bands to include, that's probably true, but it is easier to deside on known bands, then it is to decide on more obscure bands, where the moderators first have to learn more about the bands in order to make a justifiable decision in including or not including the suggested bands. (though it isn't always an advantage to be a well known band, else Queen was included ages ago, their popular output made it difficult to convince people of their initial proginfluenced output) A lot to read, and maybe it is all irrelevant, either way I've killed another useless quarter ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Radioactive Toy
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 14:33
I LIKE IT BETTER THEN PEOPLE ALWAYS COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHERS BEING NOT PROG!!! WHAT THE HELL DOES IT REALLY HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE MUSIC?!?!?!? -------------  
Reed's failed joke counter: ||||| R.I.P. You could have reached infinity.... |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 14:38
| There's plenty of "marginal" bands on the archives, what's the big deal? If you don't want to review their albums, don't. |
Posted By: frenchie
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 14:50
|
wow it felt so good to sign YES PLEASE to getting rid of them ------------- The Worthless Recluse 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 15:16
|
I know it's probably useless but I'm with you Frenchie, at least gaveny opinion.} Iván |
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 15:24
|
seems to me that far from Radiohead's inclusion being orchestrated by a few committed individuals, the campaign for their removal has come down to three - just three - committed voices. And their endless parochial bleating is beginning to get tiresome. Give it up guys.. and retreat to the cosy confines of a world that for you seems to have stopped revolving (and evolving) in 1974. |
Posted By: frenchie
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 15:44
|
i think we have learnt that polls dont make a difference. 72% of the people here already voted em not to be added to the archives, and look what happened. so i doubt this one will make a blind bit of difference ------------- The Worthless Recluse
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 15:46
|
seems about 50/50 now
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 15:47
|
oh no.... 51/49 I just voted again. the polls are FLAWED! |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 16:39
|
Yeah get rid of them not that I dislike their music Ireally like it and own sevral of their CDs,but next thing you know we`ll have Cher and the Village People in the archives. Cher is playing the Bell Canada centre here in Montreal with the Village People as an opening act but due to prior obligations I can`t attend Here we go once again with the what is/what is what isn`t prog debate. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 17:57
| And the daft thread of the year award goes to.. |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 20:23
I don't think they would have neccessarily been added ages ago, look at the Tea Party, hmm. I recall you wanting them to be added, but it is true that a line has to be drawn, which is why I'm Okay with Led Zeppelin being off the archives. ------------- Collaborators will take your soul. |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 20:25
| Just because you like something doesn't make it prog.m Just remember that Mates. |
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 22:20
| Well, the "no" option is currently in the lead. I think that should say something. |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 22:32
They are here to stay guys....  ------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: Hangedman
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 23:21
|
Although I'm not in the opinion that they are prog, way to make a stand |
Posted By: Sweetnighter
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 23:22
|
end of discussion!
------------- I bleed coffee. When I don't drink coffee, my veins run dry, and I shrivel up and die. "Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso? Is that like the bank of Italian soccer death or something?" -my girlfriend |
Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 23:29
| RADIOHEAD RULES!!! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 23:32
|
Really, I care not.... ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Yes and no.
Posted By: Gaston
Date Posted: January 17 2005 at 23:45
|
It's done. You're just scared of how people like me are going to write 5 star prog reviews for Kid A.
Tough.
Gaston -------------  
It's the same guy. Great minds think alike. |
Posted By: will
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 03:06
|
Ha! Radiohead! ------------- Long live progression. Will |
Posted By: Rob The Good
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 03:44
|
.......absolutely disgusting ------------- And Jesus said unto John, "come forth and receive eternal life..." Unfortunately, John came fifth and was stuck with a toaster. |
Posted By: frenchie
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 04:08
|
radiohead do rule, and i'm glad more of their albums are available to review. if you read the radiohead profile it says that they may not be prog but they get in as they go against most pop and standard rock qualities and are here for their experimentalism, quirky time changes, conceptish flowing albums. or something like that anyway. even i have warmed to accept that and i wanted them gone more than anyone. ------------- The Worthless Recluse
|
Posted By: poetic-killer
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 04:23
|
Assumption: If Ok Computer was released in 1973, nobody would have doubted it's relation to prog. Paranoid Android is most definitely a prog song, because of its unusual stracture, complex and polyphonic arrangement and unstable time signatures. The rest of the album as well, is very prog oriented. Almost all of the songs are harmonically complex, prog influences in sound (the fender rhodes, mellotron, and such) and in an overall the album's atmosphere is conceptic. The polyrhythmics of In Limbo, the impossible syncopation of Pyramid Song, the dense composition of 2+2=5, and the extensive polyphonic arrangements, make Radiohead relevant to the progressive rock world. True, their esthetics are more inclined to their origins of alternative rock, but that also varies with the electronic experimentalism of Idioteque, Backdrifters etc, and occasionally even to jazz, on You and whose Army and In a Glass House. Radiohead is not a downright progressive rock band, never claimed to be, but their attempt for originality often carries them into this world, which creates a hybrid I like to call "Alternative progressive rock".
Did anybody listen to Jonny Greenwood's work on the OST of "Bodysong"? That album is completely avant-garde rock, mixed with a tad of jazz and electronics, and mostly sounds like RIO. ------------- Solstice Coil - alternative progressive rock from Israel http://www.solstice.co.il" rel="nofollow - http://www.solstice.co.il |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 06:44
But I could turn round and say "Ha! Edguy! ".Why I'd need to turn round, I don't know. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 06:45
Got to love 11/8 .
I wasn't all that keen on it, to be honest. Mind you it was a long time ago when I listened. |
Posted By: Captain Fudge
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 08:24
Anyone up for giving their best shot at me? I don't care if I get banned or isolated, but I'll always beon Cert's side! Keep on proggin', you pure-blood compadre  . Say, any reaction from the band?-------------
Teenage sucks hard -- Emo sucks even harder Epic. Simply epic. |
Posted By: Squirrel_monkey
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 10:24
|
Again, too many people want to keep prog all 'specialised' so it's only them who like it. Look how much it anoys them when a 'popular' band get in! I heard a description on an amazon reviews that Prog had to be 'weird', surely no one agrees with that? To me, prog is rock that is just more complex, technical, different and ambitious. Other wise tracks like this have to become just rock, when they are certainly something different. Next: ELO! Pleease!!! ------------- i!i!i!i!i! SqUiRrEl MoNkEy i!i!i!i!i! |
Posted By: will
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 11:59
|
And i wouldnt stop you, everyone is entitled to opinion. Also i was reffering to radio being classed as porg and i am not cliaming edguy to be prog. ------------- Long live progression. Will |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 12:39
|
The point isnt wether we love or hate Radiohead...its just that with their inclusion, i believe the site will now struggle to set certain bounderies on" what is and isnt prog". Of cource there are no set bounderies (if we consider bands like Tool or Styx), but this is also going to make things alot harder for the admins in perticular...but it seems that the admins have taken their stand and they are here to stay...and as hard as that is for me...i can accept that. As creator of the thread:
THE END ------------- something pretentious |
Posted By: sigod
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 12:49
|
^ Oboy, here come the end credits. I wonder who the soundtrack was played by?
------------- I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision. - Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill |
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 14:27
|
Surely it must be....
Exit Music (For A Film)
by Radiohead!!!!! (or Brad Mehldau |
Posted By: Arteum
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 15:54
Progarchives has been my favourite website for the last year. I
faithfully visit it every day and I thank it for helping me to discover
ÄNGLAGÅRD, MARILLION, PAIN OF SALVATION, OZRIC TENTACLES, VAN DER GRAAF
GENERATOR, PORCUPINE TREE, ARENA and others. I was always thinking this
site was a clean place, but with the introduction of RADIOHEAD, it is
beginning to stink. I am scared to
think that I can recommend this site to my prog-loving friends, and the
first few reviews on the title page that they will see will be those of
RADIOHEAD's albums. 
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 16:34
|
Don't panic Arteum, there's often an initial rush of reviews when new bands are added, especially ones which have enjoyed some commercial success. Things will settle down again though. Interesting to note a lack of Roxy Music reviews though, not a single one yet! |
Posted By: asuma
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 16:46
|
i vote that they should be taken off the site. ------------- *Remember all advice given by Asuma is for entertainment purposes only. Asuma is not a licensed medical doctor, psychologist, or counselor and he does not play one on TV.* |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 17:19
| But... they aren't going to be! |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 17:38
|
2005 inductees in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: Buddy Guy (blues) Percy Sledge (soul) The O'Jays (motown) The Pretenders (new wave...but they could rock from time to time, so OK on that one) U2 (ditto above, with less emphasis) Now, given the fact that only 2 out of 3 are even remotely rock and roll...doesn't if feel kinda silly to argue whether RH is prog or not? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
Posted By: Beau Heem
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 17:43
Out of three? ------------- --No enemy but time-- |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 18:09
|
^ I was only counting U2, The Pretenders, and Guy....yeah, right! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Arteum
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 19:54
|
Now I understand why there are people who think that RADIOHEAD is prog. As everybody else, I was asked many times what music I was listening to. I remember two or three occasions when my natural reply "Progressive rock" produced the next question: "Oh, it's like RADIOHEAD?" After talking to the people who thought that RADIOHEAD was prog, it became obvious that they: a) Confused GENESIS with PHIL COLLINS b) Thought that PINK FLOYD was a 'cool' group whose songs they like to listen on the radio c) Never heard of 99.7% (I think that's a good estimation) of artists listed on progarchives.com d) Typically included in their greatest musical interests U2, CHEMICAL BROTHERS, RAMMSTEIN, METALLICA, OASIS and other bands of this type Why is RADIOHEAD listened to by people who think that PINK FLOYD is a 'cool' pop group? |
Posted By: Eddy
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:03
|
pink floyd is listened too by all the clics in my school. your cooler if you listen to pink floyd. unfortunally, when i try to get them deeper into prog, they run away! its kinda sad. i know people who listen to pink floyd evenb though they dont liker the music. now radiohead. i dont even think they think themselves as progressive rock, therefore, why let them have tthe honor of being on this website! |
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:04
|
How is Porcupine Tree being in here a good thing, but RH being in here negative? Steve Wilson has said that Stupid Dream was very much influenced by Radiohead... |
Posted By: Arteum
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:12
|
> How is Porcupine Tree being in here a good thing, but RH being in here
negative? Steve Wilson has said that Stupid Dream was very much
influenced by Radiohead... Hmm, maybe that's why I don't particularly like "Stupid Dream"? I mentioned PORCUPINE TREE only because of "The Sky Moves Sideways", "Signify" and "In Absentia". |
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:23
|
I've always thought that The Sky Moves Sideways had kind of an ambient, somewhat electronic vibe not unlike what Radiohead has going on Kid A, although that could just be me... |
Posted By: Lunarscape
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:47
Dont worry, the RH rush will fade and within short time they will be forgotten. The reason that they are here in the first place is purely comercial. As an MTV backed up band, they do atract some attention to the juvenile listeners, lets say like Back Street Boys with mellotrons ! Why they shouldnt be listed ; Their vocals are lousy, Pshycodelic Furs had better vocals, the depressing undertone in these vocals are at the best; annoying. The lyrics are dreadful a pop clichés far to boring to dissect. Now as for instrumentation; The drumming is, again, boring and repetitive played without any imagination or passion. Bass lines ? no way ! The guitar playing is, humm lets say, burocratic and yes...efficient enough to call attention to the less experienced listener. Keyboards; Move over Wakeman, Emmerson, Van Leer, Vangelis, your new master is here to teach you guys how to make refined and superb music ! Listen to Airbag, Idiotique, Creep and I Might be Wrong and tell me if this is the stuff a serious Prog site would deal with ? ____________ Lunar ------------- Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . . |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:53
If Porcupine Tree is Prog, then so is Tool. Tool is prog man, you just don't like it. So maybe your opinion on Radiohead is biased as well. ------------- Collaborators will take your soul. |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 20:54
|
50/50 now. very interesting! ------------- Collaborators will take your soul. |
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: January 18 2005 at 21:39
Listen to Paranoid Android, Like Spinning Plates, Pyramid Song (which has probably the weirdest time signature I've ever heard). Is this the kind of stuff a serious prog site would deal with? Yes! If you honestly think the vocals are bad, try to sing with half the emotion (not to mention the fantastic range) that Thom puts into his voice. Since when does the quality of a band's lyrics dictate how prog they are? ELP has written some of the most cringeworthy lyrics I've ever seen, but no one has any problem considering them prog. They have some very complex drum parts (listen to the title track from Kid A, or as I mentioned previously, Pyramid Song), some outstanding basslines (Airbag, Myxoatosis), some incredible guitar work (If the soloing in Paranoid Android doesn't qualify as impressive, we might as well just never bother listening to music with guitar). Just becuase they don't insist on clogging up their albums with bloated, meandering keyboard solos, doesn't mean they aren't prog. Again, just because they're not a keyboard based band, doesn't mean they're not prog. They've been going strong for more than 10 years, and are only getting more and more popular as time goes on, so I think that to say they're a fad being backed by MTV is ridiculous (especially considering they made a point not to release any singles for Kid A, and considering MTV is pretty much branding them as "uncool" now that they've moved on to a higher form of art). |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 05:39
|
I think it's important not to confuse "popular" with "pop music". I also think that there is a real depth to Thom's minimalist lyrics - every time I read them as I listen to the music, the music paints colours into the words which tells a story that is hard to translate, but you feel in your subconscious. THAT is progressive |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 07:22
Not to mention 'exit music for a film' and 'lucky', both of which stand up favourably among some of the more established progressive rock standards ('exit music' especially). I have to admit, apart from The Bends, and OK Computer, I am not a fan of Radiohead, but in my opinion, they do qualify for inclusion on the Archive as they are genuinely progressing, constantly experimenting, and never resting on their laurels - OK, we may not always like the result, but at leaxst Radiohead could never be called 'stale'. In my opinion, they are one of the few truy progressive (using its literal meaning) rock bands around today. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Jim Prog Wizard
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 07:43
|
Radiohead may be constantly progressing, but then so are a multitude of bands in metal, world music, post-rock and even drum & bass. Do these bands also warrant inclusion on the archives? "Prog" is distinct from progressing. ------------- "Progressive Rock is the ultimate form of music" (Mikael Akerfeldt, 2003) |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 08:26
I didnt say that Tool werent Prog.... ------------- something pretentious |
Posted By: Carlos
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 10:28
I ALWAYS SAID THEY'RE NOT PROG ENOUGH...BUT TOO LATE THEY WERE ADDED, THE DAMAGE IS DONE...IF YOU DON'T WANNA REVIEW IT, DON'T DO IT. I WILL DO IT, BUT HARDLY I WOULD RATE THEM MASTERPIECES, EXCEPT FOR OK COMPUTER... I VOTE NO, WHO CARES? I DON'T ------------- Democracy=A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people... 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 11:12
"of this type"? of what type are those bands? |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 11:22
Where in any definition of progressive rock does it say the vocals aren't allowed to be lousy? (NB I personally don't think the vocals are lousy) or have a depressing undertone? As for clichés in the lyrics, I can understand that view for "Creep" (or in fact most of that album), but do bear in mind that the song was intended as pastiche. (should that be a pastiche? never mind) The drumming, I'll admit, is nothing particularly showy, but it does require some skill to keep going in a slow 11/8 for a whole song. The bass line in "Exit Music" is fantastic, and the little bits in "Paranoid Android" are quite nice. I don't quite understand how bureaucracy describes the guitar, but I find Jonny's playing in some places quite inspiring. As for keyboards, they don't have a full-time keyboard player, and I find Jonny's playing more interesting than Geddy's! I personally wouldn't pigeonhole Radiohead into prog, because I don't feel their music is bound enough to the tenets of progressive rock to warrant it, but there are strong prog elements in their music, and as such I have no worries about them being called prog. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 11:24
Neither world music nor drum & bass are rock! Thus, no artists in either of these styles can possibly be progressive rock! As for metal and post rock, there are several bands in both styles on these archives! |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 13:45
| Wow this could turn into the next Mariah thread. |
Posted By: Wrath_of_Ninian
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 14:44
|
I like the fact that Radiohead are there because it annoys the Radiohead fans I know - all of whom see themselves as supporters of a "shining beacon" in contemporary music's horrible decline, and preach unhealthily about the passion and integrity of Messrs Yorke and Greenwood. Radiohead are at best a good indie band with existential pretensions and at worst a pretentious, self-righteous, and utterly dispicable crew of overaged teenagers, moaning about why the world doesn't work. However, its their fans that really hack me off - like REM fans (and often there is communion) - who all seem to believe that they are operating on a higher level because they listen to (and sometimes understand) Yorke's ponderous, but ultimately, adolescent tosh. Telling them they have been included on the Progarchives website (the bain of many a joke against me), has had the effect of dividing the intellectualites who believe ALL Radiohead is godlike from the hangers-on who think its cool to like bands who think. And their faces when I tell them.... To this end, Radiohead's inclusion is welcomed, though ultimately it will serve little purpose in presenting prog fans with something new to digest - the vast majority will be grossly disappointed - like hearing Kansas for the first time after some of the reviews on this site. My vote for their inclusion just swung it 51-49% in favour...apologies to those who voted with genuine intent of their removal. ------------- "Now all the seasons run together, and the middle days are gone..." |
Posted By: Fishy
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 15:12
|
I voted Yes (not the band), Radiohead may have done some excellent stuff in the past, I don't see why one should call this progressive rock. There's some rock sites on the net where the fans of this band can post their reviews. What's the point of posting reviews of a well known band anyway ? There's not much controversy about Radiohead. You may like them or hate them but it's impossible to not knowing them considering the fact this band already got lots of attention by the press all over the world. Prog archives gives the opportunity to get to know some new music. I don't think anyone will be checking out Radiohead after reading a review on this site. On the portal I read a lot of reviews of ok computer. Too much for my sake. Some people use the possibility to post a review for showing their opinion about whether Radionhead should be included on this site or not. I don't think that's a good idea. If you want to review an album, go head. If you want to get people to know of your opinion about whether this band should be on prog archives, go a head and use the forum. Don't use the reviews for this purpose. |
Posted By: frenchie
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 16:25
|
ok people, lots of ppl are giving radiohead bad reviews on the main part of the site. 3 reviews with zero stars saying they arent prog at all, maybe the army of radiohead fans here should focus on the music rather than prog or not and get reviewing with some more positive feedback, i cant stand to see one of the greatest bands ever getting bad reviews, even if i was against them at first! ------------- The Worthless Recluse
|
Posted By: penguindf12
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 17:28
|
Now that they're on, I think they should stay. REMOVING a band is a much greater sin than adding one. Plus, their stuff is fairly proggish, and I don't think any Bee Gees or Smashing Pumpkins are going to be added. Some of their stuff is legit prog, and some isn't, just like Yes, Genesis, and most any other stuff on here. Radiohead is sort of in the vein of Porcupine Tree...but seriously, having Radiohead on here won't hurt anything or anyone. i mean, come on. It's not as if adding them to this site affects the site in any way. And I have enough trust in the administrators that they will judge what's prog and what isn't very well. Personally, I think a new category should be made for alternative rock/progressive rock fusion bands like Porcupine Tree, Pineapple Theif, Radiohead, and the numerous other bands that are sure to emerge in this genre in the future. |
Posted By: Wizard/TRueStar
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 19:20
| YES PLEASE!!! |
Posted By: Wizard/TRueStar
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 19:24
| You know what? Keeping Radiohead in the archives is like keeping the "Mariah Carey" thread in main discusions. If Radiohead stays then move Mariah back. |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 21:46
|
While we're add it let's add Zeppelin. What do y'all say? ------------- Collaborators will take your soul. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 21:56
|
Ok Rob, but let's add Bob Geldoff and The Boomtown Rats also, the track I don't Like Mondays is very progressive and has an amazing piano. But over all, I LIKE THIS SONG Iván |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 19 2005 at 22:01
|
Sounds good Ivan, I totally agree. So it's done then. ------------- Collaborators will take your soul. |
Posted By: K00l Prog Guruz
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 00:25
You dont control the archives! LOL!  !!!!!How about petiotion to shut up! Burn! ------------- "The world is in your hands, now use it." Good'ol Phil |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 10:04
|
------------- something pretentious |
Posted By: frenchie
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 14:35
|
i think they should be taken off now, its an insult to such a great band for people to be sl*gging them off and giving them 0 stars just cos they aint prog. they aint prog, this is a prog site, why are they here? this is jus becoming an embarresment now, its making the site look bad, too many negative responses, dont you think we can jus call it day and end all this crap. The only way is to get rid of em. ------------- The Worthless Recluse
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:04
|
Not sarcastic with Rob, Sarcastic with Radiohead, if this indie band is in, why not Led Zeppelein and Boomtown Rats? Iván |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:08
|
^ even though their lyrics and music (for the most part, although not true on a few albums) are blues based, ive always thought of Zeppelin as a sophisticated or "avant garde" rock band. If we use the Radiohead example again: most of their discography( except two albums) isnt considered prog by most of the members, why isnt a band like Zeppelin (who have at least three "Progressive" albums) listed on the archives? it's a question id like answered. ------------- something pretentious |
Posted By: mirco
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:14
|
If we continue on this route, about seeking prog elements in every band we like and suggest they deserve to be on the site, then the archives should be moved to a much bigger server... And I am a big fan of Zeppelin, by the way... For example, I may think that the Beatles have enough merits to be here, but that's only a visceral opinion, if i think with the brain and not with the heart, a band with so many N.1 can't be take seriously as a prog-band... ------------- Please forgive me for my crappy english! |
Posted By: Wrath_of_Ninian
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:15
|
Neither Led Zeppelin nor the Boomtown Rats were 'indie' - what was your point? Why cant folk accept that Radiohead have written some very proggy songs and some very good Krautrocky songs (many of which are as good as anything made by the long-established stalwarts in the archives). Yes, they have come up the ladder and established themselves as indie-crooners, but two of their albums do stand out in their catalogue. If we're judging bands only on their ENTIRE creative output and want them admonished as an 'Indie' band, then I demand Genesis and Kansas be removed forthwith as pop fodder. ------------- "Now all the seasons run together, and the middle days are gone..." |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:20
| If Radiohead is to remain then Mariah must to return to the main discussion section. Alvin and the Chipmunks are other candidates for the archives and have my full support even though the band is now defunct. Don`t get me wrong, I really like their music but do not think Radio Head belongs on this site and If youwould ask the individual members of the band they would probably agree. |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:25
Accually, Ninian: If you took the time to accualy LOOK at the Genesis discography before making such a post, you would have seen that they only have 6 albums that would be considered "pop", as opposed to 12 that are prog: Therefore; your point is invalid. Regarding Kansas, as im not a big fan i am not fit to comment on their discography. ------------- something pretentious |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 15:40
|
I think Radiohead had a huge influence on Marillion's new sound. But that doesn't mean they should be in the archives. I never considered them as prog and never won't. ------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: FloydWright
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 16:00
|
I will speak in favor of Radiohead.
In fact, I will argue that their situation is almost identical to that of Talk Talk--a band that started out as 80s synth pop, but turned in the space of one or two albums into true prog. This is exactly what Radiohead has done, and if Radiohead is taken off, then I think Talk Talk will have to go too, and numerous other bands that may have followed a similar path into the genre. I'd also like to add that I am ALSO not amused with the protest-voting that's going on with Hail to the Thief and OK Computer. I don't like HttT all that much, but I at least tried to be respectful to those who might disagree, and to treat the album even-handedly, pointing out good where there's good, in addition to bad where I think there's bad. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 17:06
Which albums after Wind and Wuthering are prog? Up till then there's only eight (studio) albums, and that's including the debut which I haven't heard. |
Posted By: Wrath_of_Ninian
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 18:34
No need to 'look' as I am now the proud owner of said albums (up to Wind & Wuthering). However, I don't see why it invalidates my post - my point being that because Genesis have at least ONE album that is NOT considered prog, it would appear to deem them worthy of the slating afforded to the Oxford Whingers, who also have a few clangers in their back catalogue. Radiohead have made two prog albums, and the rest are arguably indie. I wasn't arguing about ratios, but rather that Radiohead HAVE produced a prog work and yet they still are being vilified because their other albums are not deemed prog. All I was doing was extending the argument to Genesis - though obviously not as clearly as I thought.... I'd be all for Zeppelin coming on board - though they'd probably have to clear it with the ghost of Peter Grant first.... ------------- "Now all the seasons run together, and the middle days are gone..." |
Posted By: Jim Prog Wizard
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 19:50
|
My point is still valid. Where do we draw the line? Rage Against The Machine and Bodycount combined rap and metal in an original way. Should they be classed as prog because they made music which is technically progressive? Faith No More should be on the archives before RadioHead. Their music genuinely evolved with every album. ------------- "Progressive Rock is the ultimate form of music" (Mikael Akerfeldt, 2003) |
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 20:04
|
The problem is obvious. What the hell is prog? ------------- Collaborators will take your soul. |
Posted By: Lunarscape
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 21:26
|
I had the enormous pleasure of listening to a few albums this week that I hadnt heard in years; E PLURIBUS FUNK and SURVIVIOR by Grand Funk Railroad. Hard rock power trio and at a few songs backed up with Hammond and at others backed up by orchestra. I'll tell you guys; that is just as prog as some of the "newer" stuff added here recently. Waiting For Custeau by JEAN MICHELL JARRÉ. Holy s*** this album is fantastic and thinking that pop bands are preferred to JMJ
________ Lunar ------------- Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . . |
Posted By: aqualung28
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 21:39
|
ARGH!! I'm SO SICK OF THIS RADIOHEAD CONTROVERSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------- "O' lady look up in time o' lady look out of love 'n you should have us all O' you should have us fall" "Bill's Corpse" By Captain Beefheart |
Posted By: the musical box
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 21:40
Well Ninian.... for a band to be considered prog; a considerable amount of their work must be progressive. And if you look at Genesis' discography i think you'll find there are many more prog releases (compilations excluded) than "pop" material. And using Genesis as a way to justify your argument that Radiohead is prog (when less than half of their material is prog, as you said) was incorrect. Which is why Zeppelin prolly shouldnt and never will be added; the fact that we love them has nothing to do with the argument. ------------- something pretentious |
Posted By: Hangedman
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 21:43
Another flaw in the genesis argument was that there was a major change in the membership of the band, it was in fact a different Genesis altogether. They lost thier leading man. radiohead, although they are evolving musically they are not going through any drastic changes, so the argument doesnt hold over to well. I listened to Kid A a few times, and am now convinced of radioheads justfication as a prog group. as for led zepplin PLEASE NO. ill keep any other comments to myself unless someone makes a thread. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 20 2005 at 23:59
|
I believe that we should stop this, even when I'm totally against the inclusion of Radiohead, I promise not to mention them again. It's so easy to omit the posts about them and the reviews of their albums, I still haven't gone to their page and won't. If we continue arguing this may have an ugly ending. Iván |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 21 2005 at 01:09
|
Wrath of Ninian wrote:
I'm making this post not because of Radiohead, but because Genesis was mentioned. I'm not going to talk about the trascendence of Genesis in Prog' history but only will refer to the number of albums, not mentioning any compilation, only original productions and Live albums: 100% Progressive Albums:
Partially Prog or Transicional (I hate all but that doesn't matter):
Not Prog:
So we're talking about ten 100% Prog albums, three partially Ptrogressive, and 8 Not Prog'. From where did you took the numbers Wrath? If we do the same with Kansas, the differences would be higher in favour of Propg' albums, because all the pop they dod was in the 80's and we're talking about 3 albums from more than 15. Iván |