Are they progressive? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165

Posted: March 28 2010 at 21:50

More importantly, will it blend?

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: March 28 2010 at 21:56

Padraic wrote:

More importantly, will it blend?

You are full of memes tonight.

AlexUC

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 06 2007
Location: Noveria
Status: Offline
Points: 392

Posted: March 28 2010 at 22:11

micky wrote:

there must be some misunderstanding... whoo... there must be some kind of a mistake... whoooo..

HAHAHAAHA you just made my day

This is not my beautiful house...

OT Räihälä View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514

Posted: March 29 2010 at 01:08

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

[QUOTE=OT Räihälä] [QUOTE=Ivan_Melgar_M]

So, if you don't want a harsh reply, be careful with the words you use, specially if you didn't understood the post.

Iván

Ferchrissakes, don't get mad! I see, light "dressing-room banter" is obviously not your cup of tea... Ouch

So, the conclusion is that Radiohead are progressive, and you think they are not on the level of those 70's bands. Here our opinions differ, as I think Radiohead are musically more adventurous than MOST of the bands you listed. Matter of opinions, and thus open to discussion.

My point is, the prog of the 70's doesn't define what prog is. Great music it is, of course, but IMO Gesualdo and Beethoven are as prog as they come, and yet they will never be listed in Prog Archives.

Edited by OT Räihälä - March 29 2010 at 01:11

Composer - Click to listen to my works!

(De)progressive View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 24 2010
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 495

Posted: March 29 2010 at 08:44

I forgot to mention them, what about Katatonia, Akercocke, Nevermore and Sunn O)))?

they may not be proggy as the meaning of having progressive rock elements, but their music style is definitely progressive.

''Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment.'' (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: March 29 2010 at 12:49

If you want to discuss bands not listed on this site, the thread should relocate to the general music discussions area.

Logan

Forum & Site Admin Group

Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: @ wicker man
Status: Offline
Points: 32685

Posted: March 29 2010 at 13:54

(De)progressive wrote:

I write those bands just for example. I know the differences between them.

Can and Neu! example are given for general krautrock genre, it's definite that they are progressive bands in general at least for me but I just had the felt of giving them as examples.

The reason of this topic is to find about more problematic bands and listen the opinions about them.

I thought there was significant method to your choices as Krautrock, and Can and Neu! specifically, influenced Radiohead and of course Muse cites Radiohead as an influence... Radiohead, Muse, Neurosis all claim Pink Floyd as an influence, Krautrock was influenced by Floyd (certainly Tangerine Dream was) and Cult of Luna is definitely influenced by Neurosis. Swans was influenced by the post-rock outfit Joy Division, as were, I certianly think, Radiohead and Muse (I know Radiohead has covered Joy Division) and I know that Joy Division was influenced by the Krautrock band Kraftwerk.

I think one can draw many similarities between these artists. Venn diagrams would show lots of overlap -- overlaps in styles, approaches, and influences.

As for the question itself -- I definitely consider Can and Neu! to be progressive, but whether it's considered Prog proper is a different question. They were part of the Berlin School and Krautrock movement which can be thought of as parallel or tangential to the Prog movement -- progressive rock and Progressive Rock (i.e. Prog) needn't mean the same thing, of course, and of course one can be progressive without being progressive rock, and one can be Prog without being progressive.

Edited by Logan - March 29 2010 at 14:04

Just a fanboy passin' through.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828

Posted: March 29 2010 at 18:02

Garion81 wrote:

^ LOL

Thanks Micky I spewed my drink on my monitor.

and sorry about the monitor... I can relate... if ever I run out of Diet Coke.. and need a fix... I just need to lick my screen thanks to you all here.

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828

Posted: March 29 2010 at 18:03

OT Räihälä wrote:

Ferchrissakes, don't get mad! I see, light "dressing-room banter" is obviously not your cup of tea... Ouch

hahhahahahaha...

sh*t.... there is another layer of diet coke for the monitor...

NAAAHHHHHH LOL

but that is why we love the guy

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

sealchan

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 179

Posted: April 01 2010 at 16:32

micky wrote:

there must be some misunderstanding... whoo... there must be some kind of a mistake... whoooo..

...so was Duke by Genesis a progressive rock album or a pop album?...

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: April 01 2010 at 16:38

OT Räihälä wrote:

Ferchrissakes, don't get mad! I see, light "dressing-room banter" is obviously not your cup of tea... Ouch

LOL, I only get mad when my words are changed, I already had problems in other forums because of this.

OT Räihälä wrote:

So, the conclusion is that Radiohead are progressive, and you think they are not on the level of those 70's bands. Here our opinions differ, as I think Radiohead are musically more adventurous than MOST of the bands you listed. Matter of opinions, and thus open to discussion.

Of course we can discuss it, opinions must be respected, but I don't believe RADIOHEAD is so adventurous, because even when they blended Progressive elements, they used also the alternative/Indie formula that was not innovative at all on their moment.

OT Räihälä wrote:

My point is, the prog of the 70's doesn't define what prog is. Great music it is, of course, but IMO Gesualdo and Beethoven are as prog as they come, and yet they will never be listed in Prog Archives.

Here I strongly disagree, the 70's bands defined Progressive Rock, every later Prog band follow the frames this pioneers created, of course the new ones add something of their own, but they other were the bands that defined the genre.

Now, Carlo Gesualdo in the 1600's and Beethoven in the late 700's early 800's, can be as progressive (with low case because it's an adjective) as you want, I believe the approach of Mussorgski, Cui, Boroidin, Balakirev, etc were as progressive (again with low case), because they broke with the musical status quo pf Europe, but Progressive (with high case because it's a name) Rock (and added to PA) no way,because they don't have the rock component and wrote music several centuries before the genre was born in the late 60's

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 01 2010 at 16:39