| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Fitzcarraldo 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
|
 Posted: June 09 2006 at 10:47 |
Let's put it this way: they were never labelled as a Progressive Rock group in the 1970s; in fact I and all my friends and acquaintances at the time put them in the Punk and New Wave basket. OK, they did not sound like, e.g. The Clash, but we would never have dreamed of labelling Talking Heads as a Progressive Rock group. (I liked them, BTW, and had their first album).
|
|
|
 |
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 19627
|
Posted: June 09 2006 at 11:09 |
 Joren wrote:
No, not prog, but prog-related I think. They were an experimental band for sure. |
I would not oppose their inclusion >> inventive and groundbreaking pop
and they greatly influenced KC during their 80's run
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
crucify_the_ego
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 20 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 137
|
Posted: June 09 2006 at 11:27 |
|
^
Influenced Radiohead heavily, too, though some would contest their inclusion in the Archives.
My opinion is:
They progressed rock? Then they're progressive rock.
|
|
Hector Gilbert
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 28 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: June 09 2006 at 16:09 |
|
If they're "prog", then there are loads of late 70s/early 80s post-punk bands that I'd propose for the archives.
Edited by Hector Gilbert - June 09 2006 at 16:10
|
|
Epitath
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 127
|
Posted: June 10 2006 at 09:18 |
|
Dude...that aint prog!
|
|
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: June 16 2006 at 10:25 |
|
Not prog, but clearly prog-related. Because they are definitely not mainstream.
|
|
Hector Gilbert
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 28 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: June 16 2006 at 20:59 |
|
But if they could be accepted, there are loads of groups I could propose using similar criteria that would arguably have little or nothing to do with prog as a style.
|
|
Jaydubz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 100
|
Posted: June 16 2006 at 23:58 |
Syzygy wrote:
A superb band, one of many extremely inventive and creative acts from the post punk era, but definitely not prog. |
+1
|
|
"Music is the best." ~ FZ
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: June 17 2006 at 08:54 |
No, unless all "good" or "different" artists are "prog." 
Only someone who wasn't into prog in the 70s (or perhaps someone for whom English is a second language) could even ask such a thing. 
Prog is an almost useless word -- it has been stretched and twisted beyond all recognition. (It used to mean something, until metal, folk and much classic rock, etc suddenly became "prog.")
Why this never-ending obsession with making all artists one likes, or finds to be above average in artistry, etc into "prog" bands? 
By the opening post's criteria, Bach and Beethoven (and arguably the Sex Pistols) were "prog." 
And "prog related" is the vaguest, silliest imaginary "category" of all -- all western music, from classical to now, is "prog related," fer goodness sake! 
Dumb and dumber! 
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Help settle an argument
