A change of location needed?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41891
Printed Date: April 07 2025 at 03:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A change of location needed?
Posted By: sircosick
Subject: A change of location needed?
Date Posted: September 20 2007 at 21:55
|
Honestly, I expected a change of location of Radiohead after the split up of the term Art-rock. They keep remaining in Crossover prog..... well, I could make a poll of this, but I think I've done it more than once..... So, my central though is that Radiohead should be moved from their actual genre, crossover prog, to prog related. The reasons were already explained along a pair of years and there's really no need to dilate them..... they're simply not 100% prog. I doubted if this topic is well-placed here (is it a relevant improvement to the site?), but I think there's no problem, you can move it...... but that's my idea. Commentaries? ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Replies:
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: September 20 2007 at 22:01
|
No.
Leave it to me to defend Radiohead's progressiveness, but they are perfect in Crossover Prog. They certainly have the sophistication, experimentalism, and complexity to remain a crossover prog band, yet with the shorter song structure and pop influence that is outlined in the definition for crossover prog. Honestly, they can make a really complex song musically sound close to a typical brit-rock song, but it's not. The definite progressive influence is always there from OK Computer (well, maybe not every song) to today. -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 00:42
|
But what are the other sub-genres they are crossing into? Do they do Symphonic, Folk, Metal, Neo, or even Italian? Seems to me that (if they must be in a true prog genre) they should be where other ambient, or electronic artists are. Anything else they have done has been universally agreed upon as not prog. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 01:07
|
Perhaps you should bring the issue to the attention of the Crossover team. For what I can tell you, Micky believes they are prog, and he's not going to move them anywhere else for the time being. You see, as I have tried to point out time and again (to very little success, I have to say...  ), the notion of what is prog and what isn't is highly subjective. I know many forum members disagree with Radiohead being considered 100% prog - however, there are about as many who think they are. This is one of the reasons why we have genre teams. It's quite obvious they can't make everybody happy about their choices, but this is one of the limits of classification in the arts.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 05:25
|
I'd like to mull this over at some later date after I've sat down and played all the RH CD's I own in sequence (to me honest it's a while since I last played The Bends, Kid A & OK Computer, though Pablo Honey, Amnesiac & Hail to the Theif get regular spins depending upon my mood). It will be intersting to see what next years album will be like.
I haven't discussed with Micky stuff we'd like to kick out of xover, we are concentrating on bands to add or transfer in at the moement - I think we'll need a to-do list.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 05:26
well said.. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Ghost Rider wrote:Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 05:30
 that we will ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 22:53
I think I need to take a pair of looks more to the respective definitions then......... 
------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 11:50
|
I've no problem with Radiohead in crossover!!
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 12:17
Hm, I think bands that could represent a doubt or not complete agreement through prog fans like this band, Radiohead, could be placed in "prog related", just like sircosick said, and note that he's not against Radiohead, he told me he likes them very much, though he doesn't consider them to be really Prog.  I don't honestly think they're really Prog, because when they started no one thought they could be in any case related to Prog, what really happened is that lately this band appealed to some, just some, Prog fans, and then this band entered here as just a consideration in Prog music, and I think Radiohead's music can't really afford more than that, just a consideration, IMO. |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 18:00
You just spot an important thing, which is also remarked in your post: the case of Radiohead, they only deserve a consideration in progressive music; they took inspirations from a lot of prog sub-genres to create their own style (and not even in all their stuff), which flirts with prog all the time but never being 100% prog or prog enough to call 'em crossover or eclectic or whatever..... Their alternative roots prevent those kind of labels IMO. ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 19:52
| I think Radiohead is just as proggy as Sigur Ros. In fact, Radiohead would not be misplaced in the Experimental subgenre. But Crossover is quite perfect for Radiohead, if you ask me. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 02:39
|
Frankly I don't see how the introduction of the category "Crossover Prog" could affect the prog status of bands like Radiohead. They were not moved to prog related before this new category, so why should the situation be different now?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 03:39
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 11:07
That is a good point, but I am still curious as to why people think crossover is the best place for them. The ones that people consider to be the Radiohead prog albums seem to be experimental or electronic. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 11:19
I am afraid Xover is on its way to being considered the site's 'dumping ground', much as Art Rock was before we took matters into our hands. Micky and Dean are worried about that, but aren't letting people think that Xover is a surrogate for Prog-Related. Since Radiohead are a band that have enjoyed considerable commercial success (i.e. not fully prog, according to some), many see it as no more than related to our beloved genre. I can't claim to know them very well, but I've heard both OK Computer and Kid A, and the latter is definitely prog, though not really my cup of tea. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 11:26
|
^ there is an obvious contradiction in the definition of Crossover Prog ... on one hand it says that the music contains considerable mainstream influences, on the other hand it says that it's 100% prog. Perhaps it would be better to say that these bands are considered to be fully fledged prog bands "despite of" these mainstream influences. Obviously for prog purists those bands aren't prog no matter how we change the definition of the genre ... but that shouldn't bother us. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 12:50
Perhaps you should pass your suggestion to the Xover team, so that they can edit their definition. I do agree with you that our genre definitions should be as clear as possible, in order to avoid misunderstandings. |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 12:56
Yes, and those are the albums that people site as their prog ones. They aren't really mainstream, but more ambient/electronic. This is why I keep asking if Radiohead might be better suited for one of those subs, rather than crossover. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 13:28
^ Kid A might qualify as Ambient/Electronic, but none of the other Radiohead albums ... OK Computer is not really electronic for example - It would fit nicely though in a category "New/Alternative Prog", which doesn't yet exist ... 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 13:39
|
^ OK Computer (and Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief) are Crossover Prog. Please read the current Crossover Prog definition ( http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=3 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=3 ) - everything there can be applied to Radiohead. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 14:09
|
^ Agreed.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 14:15
|
Thanks Dean, for answering the question I was asking. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 14:27
|
Let's just take a look to the first line: "Crossover Prog contains progressive rock music that, though 100% progressive..." I don't think that fits Radiohead's music at all Because if that what you say is right, then what's Britpop, Alternative Rock?? let me remember during the 90's that's how they were seen, and that's how they should remain, just don't pretend Radiohead are something that they are not, because if Radiohead are Prog, Coldplay and Oasis are Prog too and everything will be fine...  |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 14:44
Why? It does not follow that a band should be labelled by the genre they were grouped in when they first came to prominance; if they go through several musical shifts through-out their career to the extent that their third, fourth, fifth and sixth ablums bear no musical resemblence to their intial recordings. You could make the same observation about any number of bands within the Prog Archives...
Talking the converse view, should we boot out any band who makes the reverse trip from 100% prog to 100% pop? No - of course not. Radiohead are evaluated and assessed on their Progressive/Art Rock albums - not on their Brit-Pop beginnings. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 16:25
Wow ... remind me to never take anything you say seriously again. Even on Pablo Honey Radiohead were like 10x more progressive than anything Oasis ever did - and don't get me started about Coldplay either. And of course Radiohead didn't stop there - it's their least progressive album. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 16:43
Be carefully before taking things like an extremist; you can't compare Oasis or Coldplay music to Radiohead stuff at least after OKputer. You say they're kinda pretentious; how so? They undenaiably have true prog influences, and that's the main difference with the rest of the alternative bands. Do call britpop to Pablo Honey or The Bends, but somewhere in this site I read once: One album from a band is enough to call 'em prog, and just Kid A is deserver to place Radiohead in PA, dunno if in prog related or in crossover, but they're here anyway. ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 16:44
they should tattoo that post on the ass of every newbie that joins this site. and maybe more than a few long time posters as well ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 18:32
|
Well yeah, I had to exaggerate like that to make to see one point... Why do you guys still pretend Radiohead to be the ultimate Prog band?? When we know that's something that's simply not true, and some of you still say that Radiohead are "100% progressive" just like as this new "crossover" states, give me a break. The band "environment" and the "area" on people they have are evidently out of any Prog circle approach, the "scene" where their belong has nothing to do with Prog, you just are making them look like a real Prog band when they are factually not, that's what I say, not only because if you guys like them, you guys have to make them look Prog. |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 18:46
|
Well ok, you're backing the real topic now and you know I agree with your first statement about Radiohead progressiveness......... The only controversial thing you posted that I (and others) doubted is that weird comparison you did BUT...... Who did pretend Radiohead to be the ultimate prog band?????????? Again with the exaggerations ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 18:53
Well, yes I did that to make it sound more direct, and also because maybe some people could really think like that, and that would be very bad. |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:01
Exactly right. Think of a lot of the classic prog bands. If you go by their more recent work (and many from the 80s) they're prog related albums at best. Well, same goes for Radiohead's earlier work. It was a phase. It passed. Since 1997 they have released nothing but progressive albums. They qualify as a 100% prog band. I personally feel that Kid A and Amnesiac are post-rock albums, but given their spectrum of work, Crossover is best. ------------- <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:07
Exaggeration and unwarranted generalisations also look very bad because they give the impression that you are applying the same criteria for judging Radiohead's music as you do for those who oppose your view of their music. Nobody is pretending Radiohead is the ultimate Prog band, nor is anybody saying that all of their music is progressive - The '100% progressive' statement in the Crossover Prog definition does not mean 100% of the entire discography. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:12
oh really..... how about maybe the ultimate MODERN prog band ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:15
I admit nothing  ------------- <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:16
I can't count a single one "100% progressive" album by Radiohead, and aww, I have listened several in the last years, shame on me, I should have listened some more of good ol' Prog Rock instead, haha.  |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:17
me either hahahhahaha ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:23
That's mainly why I think they must be among prog relateds ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:24
well, no, if you mean by "modern", bands that don't have too much to say about their Prog Rock roots, and instead have all the alternative, depressive, annoying, noisy, even punky rooted stuff, well probably they're simply not Prog Rock then.  I must admit, they could be the ultimate alternative rock band of the 90's, not Prog, hahah. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:33
I'll answer this while I toss my chicken and cook my salad. Many 'modern' bands are but retreads of the same old sh*t from the 70's. In that Radiohead and TMV.. though differently stylisticly are quite prog. It may not be your daddy's prog.. .but it is prog all the same. damn.... my ice cream is boiling.. gotta run ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:44
So Oasis is Prog then?!?! at least you're implying that, be careful you too with that kind of considerations hehe. So you're also saying that every Radiohead album is Progressive, well then you should also tell me when you're kidding and when you're not, because that remains a joke to me, really. |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 19:55
I just wouldn't call Prog as you did.  And I must admit again that Radiohead and TMV (or MTV) both have something in their music, something that possibly makes them attractive for you, but I wouldn't say they're proper Prog bands, they're just Rock/pop bands that are certainly better than the average rock bands of today, ergo you're not forced to say they're Prog bands. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 20:03
well I need to get back to bad side of old mother Crossover here and get back to work the trick is PHP.. we all have opinions... you are free to have yours. The team sees them as Crossover... that is where they stay unless a better sub comes along. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 21:46
|
Micky is right from wherever you see it, PHP. The crossover team supposes to have expert guys on the matter (and I personally don't suppose that; I consider it as a fact), and you're far from being an expert in a music area you don't aprecciate and, according to your posts, also don't listen to enough to give strong arguments. Simply, you cannot get Radiohead maybe as the average prog band uses to do with you and then you say they aren't prog at all. And that's valid and arguably, I also doubt their progressiveness, but the arguments you gave simply reveal your lack of knowledge about the band in question, like comparing them with Coldplay. Obviously, we all have different ways to get the prog and say how pure it is or not..... In other words, it's you alone against the crossover team, despite I'm with you in some points. You've demonstrated a great knowledge in a huge lot of prog areas, but this time I think you're in a small boat. ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 21:53
|
Coldplay rip off U2 more than Radiohead Radiohead are certainly progressive. They had established their brit-rock roots with Pablo Honey/The Bends and then flipped the genre (or rather their own personal musical direction) and created a very unique, artistic, and progressive style. They've experimented with unorthodox instruments, play odd time signatures like there's nothing odd about it. As Micky said, this is not the prog from the 70s but prog nonetheless. ------------- <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 21:54
boat?.... maybe a rubber dingy perhaps.... and Dean and I ride in style in one of those supped up submarines with a bitchin sound system and... oh yeah....live nukes . .which we like to drop on the heads of those who displease us. For the 100th time... these subs are not exact.. just a guide to help you stear your PROG listening tastes. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 22:41
|
Yeah, certainly I'm far from being an alterno-guy. ...I've heard some alternative music but it just can't reach me, hahah, Prog is my cup of tea! EDIT: But remember we're in a Prog site, and I'm giving my oppinion. |
Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 22:58
Thanks. but em, I mentioned Coldplay or Oasis because they both are alternative, and both are what is known as brit-pop, so as Radiohead is, but this last band I admit it is a bit different from those I named. I can appreciate music in many forms, just I can't like everything, we all have our own tastes, but just as a Prog dude told me there's music that is "useless", like some alternative bands like Portishead, I can agree with him in many points, so be aware that alternative isn't always good, it's rather just average and poor music, IMO, I don't find there much to like. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 03:28
I'm not implying that at all ... "progressive" is just an attribute of music ... a piece of music can be progressive and still not qualify to be called "prog" - or "prog-related". Also when I say that "x is more progressive than y" that doesn't imply that y is progressive ... in the above case it's kind of obvious that I don't consider Oasis to be progressive.
I'm not saying that. Pablo Honey contains some remarkable songs with twisted time signatures and harmonic concepts that could not be found in any Oasis song (for example). This doesn't make the album prog, but it's still more progressive than Oasis. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 02:25
I don't think radiohead are prog, relativity shouldn't come into it, there should be benchmark standards (although these can only be arbitrary as it's subjective in the end) Also I don't know what anyone else thinks but if radiohead aren't in prog related then I think they would be better suited to post-rock/experimental, anyone agree? ------------- 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 23:36
hahhaha.... I'll make you a deal.... I will bring up with Dean the idea of moving Radiohead.. IF....IF you can define exactly what post-rock is. I have have searching for an answer to that since I came to PA's
Let's see if you can answer the question that even the collabs that
manage it can't answer.. unless you count... you know it when you hear
it hahhahaha.------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 05:32
|
Well to me post rock is taking the rock format and extrapolating it into longer mainly instrumental non-standard rock songs, almost ambient music with rock instrumentation (not to say that it excludes any other instruments). Like any progressive sub-genre though the boundaries blur and there is always a lot of debate between what is and isn't in certain genres - the best way to get a grip of what defines post-rock is really to listen to a whole lot of post-rock bands, which is how I came to know. I don't really mind where Radiohead are put to be honest I'm not a fan or active listener, and I don't think it's possible to give an exact definition of post-rock. -------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 05:44
I havne't heard enough of it to form a defintion in my head... always been curious about it though. Anyhow... take a read of this... explains better than I could our thoughts on Radiohead One of favorite albums... http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=33814 - http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=33814 they stay Xover... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Terra Australis
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 06:01
I agree, Radiohead are progressive in the sense they make what they like and it is different (or was when it was made). OK Computer is a great CD. ------------- Allomerus. Music with progressive intent. http://allomerus.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - http://allomerus.bandcamp.com |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 06:26
 ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 11:02
IMHO only Kid A qualifies as Post Rock/Experimental ... so: no, they would not fit in that category very well. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 30 2007 at 19:25
|
^ Mike is right. In that case, I would also call 'em progressive electronic or krautrock, since both Kid A and Amnesiac have respective influences..... but that's not enough for a label.
------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: October 03 2007 at 06:06
|
Radiohead?... Krautrock?... -------------
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 22:22
Check some wikipedia articles. I dunno that much about krautrock, but if you search there you'll find a few articles related, in which I'm sure I did read something about Radiohead influences..... say they took, certainly, influences from that sub-genre, specially Can. ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 07:14
Influences. A lot of my favourite metal bands have jazz influences. -------------
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 07:52
|
Krautrock is more of a movement than a genre so only 70's band can get in. There are A LOT of krautrock sounding bands in the psychedelic / space rock genre because they aren't from that certain time span where Krautrock ruled the world. Although I agree that Kid A and Amnesiac do have a strong Krautrock influence, they wont get in because of what I previously mentioned. They where kicked out of Post-Rock because they simply aren't a Post-Rock (Unless you're reading it literally). People where implying that they invented the whole Post-Rock genre! Now that's scary... I think Radiohead are prog. OK Computer was a prog album every way you look at it (it even had a mellotron!!! ) and they continued their prog explorations by going all German on us with Kid A and Amnesiac to a slight extent which if you consider Krautrock as part of the prog umbrella (like most of us do) then they're still being prog.Don't know much of them after Amnesiac or before The Bends so I can't comment on the rest of their albums, but they certainly didn't started as a prog band and from what I've heard they left their experimental ways in their 2003 album... I say Crossover Prog! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 07:56
|
and so for all those reasons and many more, that's where they're staying ------------- What? |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: October 06 2007 at 08:58
And what were we talkin' about? ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: October 08 2007 at 05:40
Well my point was those metal bands have jazz influences but are not even remotely close to being anything like jazz, they're on the opposite side of the musical spectrum. Same applies to Radiohead and Krautrock. -------------
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: October 09 2007 at 17:26
You're right Frump; for that reason I put the starting statement as senseless; just turn back the page, scroll up and take a look 
------------- The best you can is good enough... |