From the definition above, Crossover prog is music that "though 100% progressive, may have a musical connection to popular music." Peter Gabriel, Steely Dan, Supertramp make perfect sense for this category. It also seems the proper place for Radiohead if they are to be here.

 

I like Coheed and Cambria, and I will try to listen to some more music before rendering more opinions, but I'm pretty skeptical at this point. Just because I like it doesn't make it prog. (Ani Difranco is extremely adventurous in much of her music, but trying to call her prog folk would be pushing it)

 

...before being hung on the scaffold in the town square, Linus...

 

 

 

Johnny Rotten would roll over in his drug-induced haze to know what gets considered punk these days, (I actually listened to PiL back in the day so don't go after the details, it's just a point) and C&C are neither punk nor prog. It's some nice pop rock with enough variation to keep my interest, but little really new to offer. The guitars are using modern tone but are playing very well worn patterns in straight time including more chugging on the E-string than.....oh well. Just because the guy sounds like Geddy Lee doesn't make them prog.

 

I didn't mention SOAD to open a new topic, I just use them as a reference point as where the line is drawn. I asked and many others asked that question and it's answered. I accept it and I'm not going to bring it up again, other than as a refernce point.

 

But it's not up to me it's up to the Xover team.

 

However, '3' is a good point - I'll bear them in mind when re-evaluating (perhaps we should just swap them over) ((however I only have one 3 CD to judge them by and that wouldn't be fair))

 

 

I don't think track-format has much to do with how an album sounds (I can't fathom The Mars Volta format for example or the Pain Of Salvation triptic approach to track layout, but it doesn't affect my appreciation of the music)

 

C&C are today's popular prog. And they're not even so afraid of recognizing the link. They're not just a related band.

 

Ok I omitted the intro / history and summary paragraphs simply to shorten the post. Looking for arguing points.

 

1. "I can say that they have many different facets"

2. They have more straight pop hits but so do other bands, you use ELPs "Lucky Man" as an example

3. "They play a Rushly type style"

4. "The band's influences are highly obvious." e.g. King Crimson shirts.

5. They are similar to other Xover artists like Pavlov's Dog and 3.

 

The most compelling reason IMO for including them is from the "intelligent thematics" which is shown not only in their choosing a name that plays into a multi-album concept, but recurring lyric and melodic themes not only across songs but across albums which is impressive.

 

Some of their songs do expand beyond standard verse-chorus arrangements, and there are some expanded "suites." The chops they show are average for metal, though above most emo or punk.

 

Ok, reasons for no.

 

1. The proggy stuff is the exception to the pop rule rather than the other way around. (A point I already made "Crossover Prog contains progressive rock music that, though 100% progressive, may have a musical connection to popular music"). If you randomly sample C&C, at least 2 of 3 are going to be pretty straightforward pop. (Though I would argue good pop) Your final quote is "We take perfectly good prog songs and ruin them with our pop influences." Coheed and Cambria would more appropriately be "We take perfectly good modern rock songs and improve them with our prog influences."

 

2. The pop that they play is VERY straight much of the time. Rhythms and structures that even Kelly Clarkson, Staind, or Evanescence would use. The chugging on the pedal note is an 80's standard and the way they play it slightly on top of the beat reminds of new wave bands like the Go-Go's. C&C just use more crunch because that's the standard now.

 

3. Although the guy sounds quite a bit like Geddy Lee, I can hear almost no Rush in them other than that. Alex Lifeson is often immediately recognizable by tone and attack, while C&C guitars simple are not as distincive. The drums....well that's not fair so I won't go there.

 

BTW, I have listened about 2 hours of C&C while we've been having this discussion. The Keeping Secrets album seems more proggy overall than IV which I'd sampled in the past, but the song I'm listening to right now "Blood Red Summer" is a perfect example of the points I'm making.

 

Finally, I really like Coheed and Cambria. Part of my opinion was formed when I learned my fave "Welcome Home" on guitar and realized that it was actually much more simple and repetitive than I thought. They are a great band. IMO they just shouldn't make the cut for anything other than prog related.

 

 

 

Well the Go-go's are considered punk too, moreso than C&C. But punk is about as far from my musical knowledge base as it gets, so I'll just leave that be.

 

Proven is a strong but slippery word, and eventually arguing about the definitions of words becomes meaningless.

 

Some of our categories here have alot more coherence to them than others, and I suppose there is no avoiding that. But right now the "Prog Related" category is useless for finding new music because the bands have virtually no relation to each other. It's more an exercise in including our favorites that aren't quite prog for reviews and discussion. It would be nice to prevent Xover from becoming that as well, but that's not my call.

 

 

That's an interesting point Jay. Certainly it is our goal to keep Crossover as an Art Rock subgenre rather than a general catch-all category (read: dumping ground) for bands that don't quite fit anywhere else and are too Prog for Prog Related. Yet from the outset (ie when the sub was set-up) our 'star' bands had little in common musically (Oldfield, Moody Blues, Supertramp, Radiohead, Gabriel et al) and that has continued with subsequent additions and moves. However, the defining ingredient has always been a pop or mainstream element that is prevalent through most of the music - the problem there lies in that the Prog element, (which is the reason for being here), is less defined and can come from any direction, (ie a crossover from any Prog Sub to Pop is Crossover).

 

As Crossover team members Chris, Micky and myself have different backgrounds and interests, (we also could not be further apart geographically  ), so have a different point of view of what the subgenre should be, which will reflect in how we see the subgenre developing. Yet paradoxically we do appear to be of one accord when it comes to evaluating bands, with most bands being admitted on a unanimous vote.

 

However, that does leave the problem of how to look at the bands and think - "I like Phideaux, I wonder what other Crossover bands would I like?"

However, that does leave the problem of how to look at the bands and think - "I like Phideaux, I wonder what other Crossover bands would I like?"

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. For instance, modern bands that seem to fit in Xover perfectly are dredg and Pineapple Thief.

 

If anything, C&C probably fits heavy prog best.

 

Phideaux brings up an interesting thought that probably deserves its own thread. There are alot of bands that I would probably just label "Modern Prog" that have a unity of sound but are scattered among the categories pretty broadly, most in neo-, eclectic, or symphonic. This includes Spock's Beard, Beardfish, Transatlantic, Flower Kings, what I've heard of Phideaux, the new Umphrey's Mcgee album, and to some extent even Porcupine Tree. They are more similar to each other than Marillion or Gentle Giant or even Yes. Just a thought. 

True - but from a regonal perspective (them both being American ) - from the UK we could similarily group The Reasoning, Panic Room, Mermaid Kiss, Touchstone and Breathing Space.

 

Negoba wrote: If anything, C&C probably fits heavy prog best.

Possibly, given that The Mars Volta are there, but "we" have Three and The Dear Hunter which are closer to C&C in my estimation. However, since Heavy and Crossover are related we are in the same ball-park

 

Negoba wrote: Phideaux brings up an interesting thought that probably deserves its own thread. There are alot of bands that I would probably just label "Modern Prog" that have a unity of sound but are scattered among the categories pretty broadly, most in neo-, eclectic, or symphonic. This includes Spock's Beard, Beardfish, Transatlantic, Flower Kings, what I've heard of Phideaux, the new Umphrey's Mcgee album, and to some extent even Porcupine Tree. They are more similar to each other than Marillion or Gentle Giant or even Yes. Just a thought.

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

There have been several threads open on New Prog, Nu Prog and Alt Prog and to some degree it would make more sense to seperate them not only from classic prog, but from neo-prog too - but that would mean organising the PA by era rather than subgenre.

 

The Crossover team have a good sense of what is controversial and what isn't and to concur with Dean, most of our  evaluations result in unanimous decisions. There are some good arguments both for and against for a Crossover move so I will feedback my response, just give me some time to evaluate the band properly.

 

I have noted the EMo references in some reviews too.

cheers

 

Mike as mentioned in another thread there are definite grounds to move them to Crossover. A more natural fit IMO than P-Related. We do need to assess them as a team so will wait for everyone's opinion first.

 

First of all, the website need to change their name to Coheed and Cambria, as they don't use the ampersand (petty, peevish thing, I know).

 

Anyway, I think Coheed's older albums are their most progressive in sound and scope, though they sound the least like what we know as prog rock. The song structures and group interplay, among other things, on The Second Stage Turbine Blade and In Keeping Secrets of SIlent Earth: 3 are more unique and progressive (especially considering their sonic origins of punk & hardcore). As we move into the Good Apollo albums, we see a decline in complex structures (except the fabulous Willing Well numbers) and a more contemporary pop approach to songwriting, though their increased budget gave them more ability to layer and texturalize their stuff. Good Apollo I definitely uses the budget to its advantage, and I think it's got a lot of clever things going on underneath the catchy melodies and what not.

 

I think No World for Tomorrow, while sounding most like traditional prog rock, is their least progressive & lowest quality output. The songs are very simple and often ordinary, even if they are still tremendously catchy or memorable. The band had a clear identity before, and I think they're starting to lose it. There definitely was no progression/evolution from Good Apollo I to Good Apollo II, but I can look past that for two reasons: 1) The band went through some tough person stuff and line-up changes during this period 2) They are both volumes of the same title, so it makes sense that they stay along the same lines. The problem isn't quite the lack of evolution, it just sounds to me like they didn't even try most of the time. The songs didn't flow like they did before, the sound is pretty empty and I don't hear any neat layering very often, etc.

 

I think since I was a younger person, rooted in punky music, when I discovered them, it's easier for me to appreciate The Second Stage Turbine Blade and since many people here discovered the band after being prog rock fans for a while, they took a liking to No World for Tomorrow because it sounds closer to home. This either means that they don't find them progressive because they've only heard the miniamlly progressive No World for Tomorrow, or because they haven't properly assessed the old records. I think I may be getting off topic, so I'll sum it up:

 

The band definitely deserves a spot out of PR based on the merits of their first 3 records. Even if the band stays stagnant from here on, I think their contribution to progressive rock is significant enough to get them out. We also should keep in mind that their next record is going to include their new drummer, who came from The Dillinger Escape Plan. That guy can bring a lot to the table creatively and technically, and maybe there will be some newfound inspiration.

 

However, I really don't see them as a progressive rock band in the least. I own two of their albums, IKSOSE:3 and NWFT. The only songs that made me think 'prog' were "The Crowing" and "21:13" from the former. I suppose "On The Brink", the last song on NWFT was a bit proggy because of the unusual song structure, but the composition is very awkward, and the weird structure only serves to make it bad to listen to.

 

The C&C Suites, another aspect of their albums that could lead them to being called prog, could hardly be called suites. The songs don't lead into each other, they don't share themes, and since the albums are all concept albums, you can hardly say that they are linked by a lyrical story, since the entire album is like that.

 

And the s/t song from IKSOSE:3 an epic proggy composition? It's a standard song with 4 minutes of ideas expanded into 8 minutes.

 

Prog Related? Absolutely! Yes! They definetely belong there!

 

Any prog category like Crossover? I would say nay.

 

Again, I will reiterate that the tunes on No World for Tomorrow are their least proggy. "On the Brink" is definitely a mess - quite a shame really - but "The End Complete" actually pulls off a more expanded structure. In any case, I'll agree that based on that album they only deserve prog related.

 

Now, the suites are separated because they serve as an aside to the linear storytelling of the other songs. For example, the Velorium Camper suite takes a step back to examine the character of Al the Killer and his role in the story. I definitely wish the band would take the next step and connect the whole suite musically, but hey, the songs are still pretty good so I won't complain too much.

 

Finally, the title track from In Keeping Secrets... is no 4 minutes of ideas expanded into 8 minutes. The key elements to any composition are repetition and contrast. With new repetitions, composers often mix things up in some way to maintain familiarity while also bringing some new ideas out. That's what is going on for much of the song. They repeat the intro, but they add melodic chant with some lead vocals and what not over it, which brings the song full circle and it ends with a bang. A lot of epics do that, though this is much shorter than the ones that may come to mind. Anyway, there are plenty of new ideas in the second half, which flow perfectly while staying away from any formula.

 

As for the loss of progression in NWFT.  This is true, they did stick to verse-chorus song structure quite a bit.  But you have to think in the context of the story here.  Pretty much every song was wrapping up an aspect of the story, and I think big choruses and epic guitar solos really fit into the album in this aspect.  The past songs were less structured and more poetic in a way because the story was simply moving along from one "chapter" to another, sometimes within a song.  With the last album, everything was coming to an end.  How would you convey the end in a song format?  Well, with big choruses and solos thats how!  Besides, there are a couple songs on here (the two longest on the album) The End Complete and On the Brink that are among their most progressive, and pretty much every one of the rest of the songs have a prog flavor to them. 

 

Recently they ended the Neverender tour and added prog drummer Chris Pennie, and studio keyboardist Wes Styles got some of the spotlight on the tour and will be used in the next album.  Expect the prequel to firmly cement the band into the progressive category. 

 

Listen, their first 3 albums are all very progressive and then they missed a step on the 4th, but only in terms of proggy-ness.  NWFT is arguably their best album.  It's tight, consistent, memorable, catchy, and rocks out hard all at the same time.  Did we strip the prog title away from Yes for that turd, Tormato, which was RE-gressive and lousy?  No.  Just because Coheed did one album that was a little more straightforward rock (yet, still contains some of their most prog moments) does not mean we should stop acknowledging Coheed's contribution to moving rock music forward.  Seriously, they got EMO kids going to prog concerts and listening to Crimson and Yes!  I know because I post on their fansite. 

 

Apparently I must be missing something in their music, but this isn't going to be anything I'm going to worry about. Good for them.

 

 

 

yours sincerely,

Fred Closed.