Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70388 Printed Date: January 21 2025 at 05:19 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Bands that aren't prog, but are also greatPosted By: kole
Subject: Bands that aren't prog, but are also great
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 19:36
So, I've been thinking about my musical horizons, and I think I am "only" hooked on prog and all it's subgenres, so I need some non-prog recommendations. Maybe some world music, good classic rock,... anything that well, is not on PA :D. I really like The Beatles (ok, are on PA, but not in the atright prog section), Fourplay, The String Cheese Incident, Dire Straits, Toto, Bee Gees, The Kinks ...
Replies: Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 20:33
Blur
Pearl Jam
REM
Manic Street Preachers
Wire
Pinback
Magazine
The Wrens
Guided By Voices
Sunset Rubdown
Animal Collective
The National
Sleigh Bells
Thrice
Why
Green Day
Red Hot Chili Peppers
The Smiths
Squeeze
Big Black
Soundgarden
These New Puritans
The Fall
Outkast
Fela Kuti
Dirty Projectors
Soulsavers
Elbow
Doves
Beastie Boys
Public Enemy
Alice In Chains
Mr Bungle
Editors
The Cure
Arctic Monkeys
Panic At The Disco
Dragonforce
Fleet Foxes
iron And Wine
Grizzly Bear
Bell X1
Canibus
Protest The Hero
The Whigs
Arcade Fire
Spoon
The Roots
Busta Rhymes
Pulp
The Ramones
Yo La Tengo
Neutral Milk Hotel
Ash
Busdriver
The Replacements
Will Oldham
Johnny Cash
The Clash
Masta Ace
Tricky
Gangstarr
Death Cab For Cutie
Andrew Bird
Van Morrison
The Go Team
Autechre
Joe Jackson
Robert Plant
Slayer
Pantera
Morrissey
Shearwater
Jimmy Smith
The Jam
Super Furry Animals
Neon Neon
f**k Buttons
Grandaddy
Black Milk
Styles Of Beyond
That's enough for now.
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 20:37
Textbook wrote:
Blur
Pearl Jam
REM
Manic Street Preachers
Wire
Pinback
Magazine
The Wrens
Guided By Voices
Sunset Rubdown
Animal Collective
The National
Sleigh Bells
Thrice
Why
Green Day
Red Hot Chili Peppers
The Smiths
Squeeze
Big Black
Soundgarden
These New Puritans
The Fall
Outkast
Fela Kuti
Dirty Projectors
Soulsavers
Elbow
Doves
Beastie Boys
Public Enemy
Alice In Chains
Mr Bungle
Editors
The Cure
Arctic Monkeys
Panic At The Disco
Dragonforce
Fleet Foxes
iron And Wine
Grizzly Bear
Bell X1
Canibus
Protest The Hero
The Whigs
Arcade Fire
Spoon
The Roots
Busta Rhymes
Pulp
The Ramones
Yo La Tengo
Neutral Milk Hotel
Ash
Busdriver
The Replacements
Will Oldham
Johnny Cash
The Clash
Masta Ace
Tricky
Gangstarr
Death Cab For Cutie
Andrew Bird
Van Morrison
The Go Team
Autechre
Joe Jackson
Robert Plant
Slayer
Pantera
Morrissey
Shearwater
Jimmy Smith
The Jam
Super Furry Animals
Neo Neon
f**k Buttons
Grandaddy
Black Milk
Styles Of Beyond
That's enough for now.
Good list. A couple of them are on PA, though.
Posted By: Ronnie Pilgrim
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 20:42
Too many to list
Steely Dan
etcetera
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 20:54
The Chameleons Prince The Durutti Column Killing Joke The Sound
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:01
I'll just recommend two for now: Midnight Oil and the Boomtown Rats. I recommend checking out 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 by the Oils and A Tonic For the Troops by the Rats.
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:05
A LOT, namely Bob Dylan, Smashing Pumpkins, Neutral Milk Hotel, and the Velvet Underground. A bunch more though.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:11
Far too many. I will keep out jazz proper and stick to rock/pop/funk:
Funk/R&B/soul:
Stevie Wonder
Earth, Wind & Fire
Incognito
Jamiroquai
Minnie Riperton
Funkadelic
Michael Jackson
Donald Fagen ?
World music ?
Prasanna
Ilayaraja
Alternative:
U2
REM
Jeff Buckley
Soundgarden
Metal/proto-metal
Judas Priest
Scorpions
UFO
Megadeth
Slayer
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:14
U2, the world's biggest selling band, is "alternative"? What the hell...?
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:15
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
U2, the world's biggest selling band, is "alternative"? What the hell...?
What do you call Nevermind? Grunge, which is also often put in the alternative basket.
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:16
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
U2, the world's biggest selling band, is "alternative"? What the hell...?
What does the sales numbers have to do with the musical style?
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:18
U2 are not alternative sorry. They're about as vanilla as they get. Oh I know all the reviewers always go on about the brave new experimental sound they're trying on whatever album is the most recent at time of writing but it's a load of cobblers. U2 are plain janes.
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:19
rogerthat wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
U2, the world's biggest selling band, is "alternative"? What the hell...?
What do you call Nevermind? Grunge, which is also often put in the alternative basket.
Grunge is the filth that destroyed music. If I could set every copy of nevermind on fire, I rightfully would in order to avenge the legacy of the dead art.
As for U2, they were a pretty good post-punk band up until 1987. They've been making turgid slop ever since.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:20
Textbook wrote:
U2 are not alternative sorry. They're about as vanilla as they get. Oh I know all the reviewers always go on about the brave new experimental sound they're trying on whatever album is the most recent at time of writing but it's a load of cobblers. U2 are plain janes.
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative is what they are called a lot these days and that's the word I will use. I would rather call mostly every well known alternative band ROCK, I am just using a label for convenience.
Posted By: CinemaZebra
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:21
No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.
-------------
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:21
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:21
I don't think anyone calls U2 alternative. I've never heard that at least.
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:23
Grunge eventually gained some musical characteristics that made a form of prog we listen to today. But you probably hate it.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:23
I have heard them called that a lot....fine, plain vanilla rock, if you like.
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:24
CinemaZebra wrote:
No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.
Everything up the first three tracks of Joshua Tree is a logical continuation of what they'd been up to since 1979. After that... god, I still have no way to reconcile their early works to the junk they've been selling ever since.
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:24
Textbook wrote:
I don't think anyone calls U2 alternative. I've never heard that at least.
True. They may have been technically alternative up to a point, but then they became larger and larger - from any point of view. I can only describe them as "rock" now.
Posted By: JROCHA
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:27
Curtis Mayfield
George Benson
Stevie Wonder
The Flaming Lips
M83
Local Natives
People Under the Stairs
A Tribe called Quest
Sage Francis
Aesop Rock
ween
the avalanches
Bat For Lashes
the black angels
Bill Evans Trio
Dave Brubeck
Deftones
Minus the Bear
Black Star
------------- Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights...
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:28
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:33
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:35
Minutemen Midlake Husker Du Fiona Apple The Band Joni Mitchell Bright Eyes Sugarcubes Joe Jackson 10,000 Maniacs Rollins Band Cat Stevens Wilco
eh...just a few....too many to list
------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:39
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:41
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:44
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:51
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:54
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
I can think of a couple other genres whose meaning have expanded far beyond the word that originally described them. Indie ... and progressive.
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:58
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 21:59
TheGazzardian wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
I can think of a couple other genres whose meaning have expanded far beyond the word that originally described them. Indie ... and progressive.
Oh jesus, indie is just as idiotic as alternative. Again, the name derives from the status of the music within the marketplace. It says nothing about a sound or musical approach, unlike progressive.
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 22:08
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.
Alternative indicates a lot about the actual music, you just have to ask yourself what makes Radiohead, Joy Division, The Verve, Franz Ferdinand (fill in with any major alternative bands that you know) etc. special in sound and music. Of course it's possible to have a scenario when someone doesn't know any alternative rock music so then he can't relate and therefore the word "alternative" doesn't say anything by itself, but that's exactly the way all descriptors work: they don't say anything as a word. Just the same, classical, popular of mediaeval can't tell you anything about the music if you've never heard any classical, popular or mediaeval music, ever.
Posted By: DreamInSong
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 23:20
To start with...
The Strokes The Flaming Lips The Shins Bela Fleck and the Flecktones Dead Weather Dave Matthews Band Massive Attack The National Bon Iver Led Zeppelin The Never Wu-Tang Clan Cannibal Ox Rage Against the Machine Ratatat RJD2 Soundgarden Alterbridge Sufjan Stevens 2pac UNKLE The Sound Providers Queens of the Stone Age (of course) Them Crooked Vultures Noah and the Whale MGMT Lupe Fiasco Fredrick Chopin Sergei Rachmaninoff Blue Sky Black Death Jedi Mind Tricks Herbie Hancock Miles Davis John Coltrane Joni Mitchell Grateful Dead Guns 'n Roses Guess Who Derek and the Dominos The Eagles Eric Clapton Deltron 3030 Coldplay U2 At the Drive-In Avett Brothers Black Keys Cream
-------------
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 00:02
Re: the alternative controversy let's forget about U2 and perhaps look at Green Day. Now Green Day actually are a band who really once were alternative, yet are now one of the most prominent pillars of mainstream rock. Are they still alternative? What is the precise point that it stopped?
I think the technical definition of alternative is bands on a major label that don't sound like they're on a major label, mainstream indie if you will.
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 01:37
CinemaZebra wrote:
No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.
I disagree intensely with this. U2 didn't start to go bad until 1997.
Also, Actung Baby is an alternative rock album, even if it retains their anthem-esque songwriting a lot.
"The Fly" not alternative? Bull dicks everywhere.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 04:11
Random selection of non-prog I've been listening to recently, sub-divided into broad categories for easy reference:
Indie/Electronic/Noise Max Tundra Everything Everything Simon Bookish Deerhoof Melt-Banana Silvery Animal Collective
The Chap
Jazz/Funk Eric Dolphy
Funkadelic
Herbie Hancock
Sun Ra
Folk Linda Perhacs Arch Garrison Bridget St John Pentangle
Post-Punk Magazine
The Pop Group
Throbbing Gristle
Diagram Brothers
Half Man Half Biscuit
Public Image Ltd
There was a time on this forum where it seemed almost controversial to suggest there might actually be more good non-prog artists out there than prog ones. I'm glad those days are over.
Posted By: kole
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 05:06
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Textbook wrote:
And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.
Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.
The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite.
Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.
It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.
When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."
By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL
Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.
I... actually... agree with you. And about the indie part two. Wow.
Posted By: Zebedee
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 05:27
The Kinks
Swans
Cream
Derek & the Dominos
The Allman Brothers Band 16 Horsepower Dire Straits In Gowan Ring Judas Priest Katatonia Rome The Clash CSN&Y Buffalo Springfield Fleetwood Mac REM And many more...
-------------
Friendship is like wetting your pants: everyone can see it, but only you can feel its warmth.
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 05:47
Trouserpress: I know. It's even becoming socially acceptable to mention hip-hop, if only in this forum, though there are still a few members who, predictable as the tides yet twice as tedious, march into any rap thread and go "I DON'T LIKE A GENRE I'VE NEVER LISTENED TO. PS I AM OPEN-MINDED."
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:25
Textbook wrote:
Trouserpress: I know. It's even becoming socially acceptable to mention hip-hop, if only in this forum, though there are still a few members who, predictable as the tides yet twice as tedious, march into any rap thread and go "I DON'T LIKE A GENRE I'VE NEVER LISTENED TO. PS I AM OPEN-MINDED."
Also, Thus:Owls. I totally forgot to mention them. They're awesome.
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:29
^I've recently been getting into some hip hop myself (I think, not sure if what I've been listening to can be defined as hip hop)!! A friend made me a mix CD with some stuff by Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five, The Sugarhill Gang, A Tribe Called Quest and some other groups on it, all of which I've immensely enjoyed.
As far as bands who aren't progressive, but still great go, here are my favourites:
This Town Needs Guns American Football I Would Set Myself On Fire For You Phoenix The xx A Genuine Freakshow Death Cab For Cutie Vampire Weekend Foals Band Of Horses
-------------
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:56
stonebeard wrote:
CinemaZebra wrote:
No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.
I disagree intensely with this. U2 didn't start to go bad until 1997.
Do you mean before or after POP? I never got to listen to POP in it's entirety, but I've always loved the singles coming from it.
After that yeah, I stopped caring.
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 12:33
harmonium.ro wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
CinemaZebra wrote:
No, 1984. The Unforgettable Fire was the terrible change of style.
I disagree intensely with this. U2 didn't start to go bad until 1997.
Do you mean before or after POP? I never got to listen to POP in it's entirety, but I've always loved the singles coming from it.
After that yeah, I stopped caring.
Staring at the Sun is a good song, if overly routine, and Discotheque it alright, but here the band ran out of really good ideas and went too far into adult contemporary as well as let the image outweigh the quality of the music.
You should listen to No Line on the Horizon if you have not yet. It doesn't totally redeem the band, but it has a great Unforgettable Fire kind of production, as well as a rather experimental (for that band at this stage of their career) palette of sounds and songwriting techniques. There are a couple All You Can't leave Behind-esque Modern Rock Top 40 kind of songs, but the change of pace on Side B makes up for it. "Cedars of Lebanon." Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaah.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 13:08
I think I gave No Line On The Horizon a listen back when it came out and, while I appreciated the intent (style, production, etc.), I had a major problem with Bono's voice. I'm not sure whether I should try to revive my interest in them...
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 13:13
harmonium.ro wrote:
I think I gave No Line On The Horizon a listen back when it came out and, while I appreciated the intent (style, production, etc.), I had a major problem with Bono's voice. I'm not sure whether I should try to revive my interest in them...
It does seem to be fading a bit, but I didn't have an overt problem with it.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!