Is that Possible? Progressive Punk RocK?

The groups as: Gang of four, Pere Ubu, Husker du, Pixies are defintely art/punk.

Laurie Anderson is more prog then every of them

mystic fred wrote: jesperz wrote: Is there a possibility of making progressive rock having a sub genre such as punk rock? As Punk rock elements is almost the Yin Yang(opposite) of Prog elements... Anybody? seems like a contradiction in terms, to me! punk (Sex Pistols,The Damned) was actually the antithesis of prog rock, created as an undergound/street level protest to the "bloated mega-rich dinosaurs" of the period (referring to Led Zep,Yes, Floyd et al ). members of led zeppelin actually displayed a keen interest in the punk movement at the time!

The Damned were actually quite influenced by prog the cite Gong and Soft Machine as influences and they did a 17 minute epic for garsh sakes and john lydonaka(Johnny Rotten)started a group that drew influence from Van Der Graff Generator,Can,Captain Beefheart and lots of krautrock if u talk to a lot of punks they like alot of prog the just cant stand bands like Yes,Genesis and ELP but i found a thread were punks talk about robert wyatt

http://punk77.co.uk/talkpunk/viewtopic.php?t=4296

Witchwoodhermit wrote: MC5 are often concidered as progressive (in a punk sense). Their offical debut was in 1969. Their harsh, blistering, no holds barred approach to rock was well beyond their years. MC5 didn't care about the rules when they played, they just did it! As loud and raw as they seemed fit. Part of the same school as the Stooges and the Velvet Underground, reflecting right back to Blue Cheer perhaps. MC5 and it's few contemperaries deserve it's own place in the PROGRESSIVE development of rock.

The "problem" here is that too many are taking the word "progressive," re music, in a literal sense. Sure, there are many non-prog artists who "progressed" in their sound over time, or who caused music to "progress" by doing something notably different or ground-breaking, yet "progressive" rock refers more to an era, a sound, and an accepted core of bands from that era (Genesis, Yes, ELP, Crimson, etc), as well as modern bands whose sound hearkens back to that era. Thus, though "neo prog" acts such as IQ and Pendragon aren't really breaking any new ground, but musically referencing an earlier era (in that sense, they are "retrogressive"), they are still classed as "progressive" bands.

The Clash "progressed" in their sound, yes, and early punk acts such as Iggy and the Stooges, MC5, etc were ground-breaking, and caused rock to "progress" in a new direction, but they are not accepted as "progressive" rock, per se.

As I've maintained many times, the term "progressive," as used on this site, and in the music industry, is thus misleading, and runs counter to the dictionary. It is now outdated (its meaning was more literal in the early 70s), and very hard to define in any broadly-accepted sense. Many here, like yourself, seem to take it literally (I notice this interpretation most often among younger members, and those for whom English is a second language), while others, such as myself, view the term more in its historical, more subjective/sound-based sense.

Hence the endless confusion and debate. The word has outlived its usefulness, and is being made to describe too many vastly different musical forms. It is now even being retroactively applied to older bands that were never originally viewed as "progressive" rock bands.

Text alone is inadequate to fully describe music (sound and emotion) at the best of times, and one word ("progressive") is woefully inadequate, and even misleading, to embrace all that is gathered here. "Progressive," as a means to categorize music (and art resists too-specific categorization, as a single piece or artist can transcend/embrace different categories) is therefore all but useless. (Note that better musicians commonly do NOT label their output via category -- they will maintain that they make their own, unique category.)

Thus, when discussing "progressive" music with another person, you first need to ascertain what each of you means by the word. 

Witchwoodhermit wrote: Posted: March 28 2006 at 02:36 | IP Logged mithrandir Newbie ood observations, but try not to run people down for their tastes. We all disagree from time to time. Just be smart and play the game.

I apologize now if I my come off harsh in my post, I can be very passionate, nothing personal,

yes! Cardiacs, cant believe I forgot about them!

Hemispheres wrote: [ but i found a thread were punks talk about robert wyatt http://punk77.co.uk/talkpunk/viewtopic.php?t=4296

Indeed Robert Wyatt was taken on board by one of those classic indie punk labels Stiff.

I'm glad Peter has the patience to keep rewriting his eloquent guide to the meaning(s) of prog - I've lost my patience - but for goodness sake next time somebody takes the punk low road as a thread, PLEASE PLEASE do a local websearch and discover what has already been stated, the ground has been very heavily trampled here before.