Radiohead

Peter wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: [QUOTE=ivan_2068]But back to the point, Sweetnighter did you said a Punk band can play Progressive music??? Punk was born suposedly to destroy what progressive did to music, they did music based in 2 or 3 chords, they can't play progressive rock unless they do a cover album. This is true in theory, but if you need proof that there are punk bands who go beyond it, download the song "Marquee Moon" by Television (which clocks in at over 10 minutes and has extended soloing that would make Yes jealous) or "The Decline" by NOFX (which clocks in at nearly 20, and has tons of different sections that sound totally different from each other, and even some soloing).  Or listen to The Mars Volta, who have a strong punk aspect in their music, but are undeniably prog. Musical categories (a concept of concern more to critics and fans, than artists), like musical tastes in general, are highly fluid and subjective. What I call disco, you may label funk, what I call repetitive, agressive, posturing crap, you may call rap. Whatever. I'm not sure just how I'd classify Television, but I'd never say punk. For the record, I have put them on my "new wave" -- whatever that means -- compilations. How about just good ROCK? When I want to review an album on the Archives that I don't really consider to be prog, I review it as MUSIC, plain and simple, and give it a fitting "star" rating that does not necessarily bow to the artificial constraints of the descriptions appended to those ratings. Those words are someone else's, and fit their definitions, not mine, and are subjective as well: "a masterpiece of progressive rock" -- what the heck does that mean? "Masterpiece" is a subjective term, and there seems to be roughly as many conceptions of "progressive" as there are members here. These debates, with, for example, some pleased to welcome Radiohead to the Archives, others outraged, and still more indifferent, will never, ever end. Get over it: write your reviews, state your opinion, but don't look for consensus -- it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Hahaha I didn't write that!! How did I get misquoted??

I don't even know who the Television are!

Look I tried to take this in an interesting direction and i was ignored, but im going to take a stab at it again. Simply if by the criteria argued that radiohead is prog, why isnt jimi hendrix prog, if you want more description look at my last post. (page 3)

p.s. NO I AM NOT saying hendrix should be on the archives.

p.p.s. (Yes I have heard most of radiohead's albums, and i enjoy Hail To The Thief probably the most. I would like to just turn this thread from a simple YES THEY ARE, NO THEY ARENT thread into maybe a worthwhile discussion.)

Edit where the heck do i find them on the archives anyways?

Edited by Hangedman

You know at first I thought it was a joke, and then to my utter dismay it were a bell that rang true: Radiohead has been added.

I agree with Ivan! If Radiohead is in, then bring on the Beegees, and ELO while we're at it! ARRRRGH!!!

If Prog Rock is what some people here say it is: Rock music that progresses (personally I always thought it was far more than that), then by definition Bowie, Eno, Roxy Music and Queen should be in as well. Certainly long before Radiohead, who while pushing boundaries ARE NOT PROG ENOUGH TO BE PROG!

Edited by Rob The Good

ivan_2068 wrote: Pavlov's Dog is a mistake, not Radiohead! Why, because you don't like Pavlov's Dog and you like Radiohead? Pavlovs Dog is recognized by all the progressive community as a neo progressive band and Radiohead is considered an Indie Alternative band by most people. Pavlov's Dog is included in every respectable progressive enciclopedia or web page, Radiohead not. Ok, Radiohead is in and we will have to accept it even when a good part of the forum disagrees, but to deny Pavlov's Dog is a Progressive band is being at least a bit narrow minded. Iván

Well, here we are again at interpretation, taste, standards, and opinion. I would always see Pavlov's Dog referenced in prog guides and on sites, incl. this one of course, and when I finally picked up their first two (only?) albums, I could not find anything that, to me, resembled prog. Maybe it was the singer I couldn't stomach (and I love Geddy Lee) and I couldn't hear the music properly because of that distraction. But still, I didn't find anything forward-thinking, groundbreaking, stimulating or interesting about P.D. I'm in the camp of people who think Radiohead are a modern prog band. They moved away from pop just as Manfred Mann did when he started taking Earth Band in a way more cosmic direction...they shouldn't be scorned for having once had a huge alternative hit. It's all opinion, it's "allllll talk! Elephant Talk!" 

but, and and myabe I'm crazy, couldn't Radiohead be used as a gateway band?  I mean, if someone you know likes Radiohead, then you could sumply say, "oh, you like Radiohead?  Then maybe you would like (Insert band here).

 

ivan_2068 wrote: A progressibve band will use any element of any genre to create a different sound, that's their nature and one of their main characteristics. But Punk is basicly take rock to it's simplest form, so mixing elements of other genres is not their nature, if they do so, they stop being punk.

Sorry? so the Clash aren't punk?

Alan-

worthy point for sure, BUT I don't hear the depth or ambition in Coldplay that I do in Radiohead, and Muse is only Radiohead-ish because they're playing in The Bends-era style, which Radiohead left behind years ago from more (here we go) Progressive areas.

 

Ivan-

haha, I guess I didn't bother checking into the 3rd and 4th Pavlov's cuz I figured if I didn't like the first 2,why bother? I would never argue to get them kicked off the archives  or anything, if enough proggers say they're proggy, then so be it. 

goose wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: A progressibve band will use any element of any genre to create a different sound, that's their nature and one of their main characteristics. But Punk is basicly take rock to it's simplest form, so mixing elements of other genres is not their nature, if they do so, they stop being punk. Sorry? so the Clash aren't punk?

Probably, and Donna Summer is the Queen of Disco, but still don't get your point.

Iván

damn straight Cert!

ivan_2068 wrote: goose wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: A progressibve band will use any element of any genre to create a different sound, that's their nature and one of their main characteristics. But Punk is basicly take rock to it's simplest form, so mixing elements of other genres is not their nature, if they do so, they stop being punk. Sorry? so the Clash aren't punk? Probably, and Donna Summer is the Queen of Disco, but still don't get your point. Iván

The clash mixed other musical styles with punk, was my point.