Print Page | Close Window

Question about Sigur Ros

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=86517
Printed Date: December 21 2014 at 08:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Question about Sigur Ros
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Subject: Question about Sigur Ros
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 08:12
I have a friend who found out I liked Progressive Rock and asked me if I listened to Sigur Ros. I hadn't so I started listening to one of their albums. It's very nice, ambient music, but I'm not sure why they qualify as Progressive. Are there specific songs I should listen to in order to better understand the answer to that question?

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List



Replies:
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 13:31
I don't think you need to look up more Sigur Ros as much as you need to expand your notion of "progressive". Wink


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 13:47
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

I don't think you need to look up more Sigur Ros as much as you need to expand your notion of "progressive". Wink


Ok, what is YOUR notion and how does Sigur Ros fit into it? If I pulled out some Moby and said "progressive", what would you say? I mean, Sigur Ros sounded nice...but they just sounded to me like some nice, ambient electronic music. Nothing technical going on, no compositions that took a melody and turned it around and upside down, expanded on it and told a story with it...but like I said, I haven't listened to the whole album. So maybe another song is more progressive.

Sorry, but I'm not of the opinion that "anything goes" for the genre - I believe certain musical characteristics that ARE identifiable have to be present.

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 16:20
I don't think "technical" necessarily constitutes as progressive. Sigur Ros simply has compositions that progress beyond standard song structures, the song "Glosoli" being a good representation of that. Their music tells auditory stories with a beginning, middle, and end, usually without typical verse-chorus-verse structure, and they rely heavily on the progression in a certain atmosphere that they establish rather than with the use of explicit vocalizations (though the vocals are there, they are used more as another ethereal instrument than a means to convey a verbal message).

-------------
http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 16:49
Originally posted by colorofmoney91 colorofmoney91 wrote:

I don't think "technical" necessarily constitutes as progressive. Sigur Ros simply has compositions that progress beyond standard song structures, the song "Glosoli" being a good representation of that. Their music tells auditory stories with a beginning, middle, and end, usually without typical verse-chorus-verse structure, and they rely heavily on the progression in a certain atmosphere that they establish rather than with the use of explicit vocalizations (though the vocals are there, they are used more as another ethereal instrument than a means to convey a verbal message).

See, this is a good argument, and you provided an example, which is what I was asking for in the first place.  I will go listen to Glosoli now.
All I was saying before is that the music I was listening to sounded sparse and ambient and pleasant, but I didn't hear any characteristics that seemed progressive, and this statement was no cause for a patronizing remark about my conceptions of what Progressive is.  When people make remarks like that, it makes me wonder if THEY know anything about music at all or are just trying to be an all inclusive club.  Which isn't a club at all.  Musical genres are defined by musical characteristics, and if those characteristics are not present an artist should not be classified as part of that genre.


-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 16:57
Sorry if you took offense, I put a winkie there just in case, seems like it didn't help clear things (it was a light hearted remark). 


Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 17:12
Progressive in y opinion has very little to do with technical... it is possible to be highly technical without being progressive. Progressive is about taking sound in different directions and combining sounds in interesting ways. Often this tends to be technical but that isn't the point. For a band like sigur ros it has more to do with the fact that they take classical jazz and electronic structures and translate them into rock music that is barely recognisable as rock.

-------------
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 17:57
The specific sub-genre that Sigur Ros is considered part of , by the way , is "Post-Rock".  It's a dumb name, but it seems to encompass a progressive style of rock that bears little resemblance to the prog bands who use a lot of notes, and/or complicated keys and meters. This stuff is still complex in its own way, but not in the sense of being difficult to play, more like being difficult to achieve the right texture, blend of sounds, and control of dynamics.  Achieving the right atmosphere with these tools is the ultimate goal, and that's harder than it may seem.

I don't know of any Sigur Ros that resembled electronica, rather I hear a lot of pianos, tuned percussion, clean guitars, and oh-so-high vocals.  My favorite album is the untitled one known as ().


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 19:05
Originally posted by colorofmoney91 colorofmoney91 wrote:

I don't think "technical" necessarily constitutes as progressive. Sigur Ros simply has compositions that progress beyond standard song structures, the song "Glosoli" being a good representation of that. Their music tells auditory stories with a beginning, middle, and end, usually without typical verse-chorus-verse structure, and they rely heavily on the progression in a certain atmosphere that they establish rather than with the use of explicit vocalizations (though the vocals are there, they are used more as another ethereal instrument than a means to convey a verbal message).


Very insightful post Clap


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 27 2012 at 19:38
Thanks, I'll be here all week Cool

-------------
http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 28 2012 at 03:54
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Sorry if you took offense, I put a winkie there just in case, seems like it didn't help clear things (it was a light hearted remark). 

Yeah. I got that.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 29 2012 at 14:28
Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

Progressive in y opinion has very little to do with technical... it is possible to be highly technical without being progressive. Progressive is about taking sound in different directions and combining sounds in interesting ways. Often this tends to be technical but that isn't the point. For a band like sigur ros it has more to do with the fact that they take classical jazz and electronic structures and translate them into rock music that is barely recognisable as rock.
I'd agree with all of this except the last six words.

-------------


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: April 29 2012 at 17:19
I still haven't listened to a whole Sigur Ros album.  However, I did listen to Gobledigook and now I see what it is that people are saying is progressive about them.

I would however, disagree that Progressive has little to do with technical - how is it possible to make music that uses compound time signatures and is composed in a narrative style without being even a little technical?  I think the genre is by nature more technical than most musical genres.


-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: April 29 2012 at 17:39
But Sigur Ros isn't technical and normally doesn't have music with narratives and odd time signatures, they simply take music further than any other band has previously which is what makes them progressive.

-------------
http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 29 2012 at 17:52
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

I still haven't listened to a whole Sigur Ros album.  However, I did listen to Gobledigook and now I see what it is that people are saying is progressive about them.

I would however, disagree that Progressive has little to do with technical - how is it possible to make music that uses compound time signatures and is composed in a narrative style without being even a little technical?  I think the genre is by nature more technical than most musical genres.

Technical ability is common in prog but not absolutely necessary, and is only one of the components of progressive music, along other elements of compositional sophistication.


-------------
http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 29 2012 at 17:54
Progressive is more about development of form rather than technicality, and there's a huge amount of music based on technicality and virtuosism that isn't progressive, see guitar shredding music. It's sure nice to have both in one package, but it's still progressive when Sigur Ros (and many psychedelic, krautrock, fusion, electronic prog acts) rely on a songwriting that develops form in a subtle manner based on minimal contrasts and slow "narration", less assertive lines and more textures, etc.  Smile


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 29 2012 at 23:53
Well if you are a traditionalist then I guess they're not because it's not rock that progresses.
To be more specific it's not 70s style rock that progresses...

If you want to take a more liberal view, than prog rock isn't just rock that progresses and is technical.
It's tough for me to personally describe but I guess it's more about the nature than the music. A progressive nature.
This more loose view can lead to problems..,because there's a floodgate tendency (omg this is slightly different from the norm so it's progressive) but I like it better than a strict definition. I mean how prog is that anyway??

The technical aspect is a big one to many people and it kind of bugs me because pretty much technicality = prog and that tends to be the extent of debate.

Just rambling elitism...I really don't care and Sigur Ros is certainly prog rock :D


-------------
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."


Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 30 2012 at 00:13
I am not a major fan of Sigur Ros. But I recognise their progressive influences especially on 



and 




and even




thou thats their least proggy album

Very ambient relaxing music with non commercial styles, unusual meters and sigs, strange musical nuances, and lengthy compositions - Prog! 


-------------


Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 30 2012 at 00:17
One of my fave Sigur Ros is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rcPRt7sjA" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rcPRt7sjA

sheer beauty




-------------


Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: May 06 2012 at 19:56
Very pretty. I just started getting into Sigur Ros myself. Very refreshing.


Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: May 07 2012 at 20:29
I recommend this one, with the ironic alternate title of "The Pop Song":




-------------
Frank Swarbrick

--
Belief is not Truth.


Posted By: Of Illuminati
Date Posted: June 14 2012 at 03:26
Sorry, but you can live life without Sigur Ros.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 14 2012 at 07:54
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

... 
Sorry, but I'm not of the opinion that "anything goes" for the genre - I believe certain musical characteristics that ARE identifiable have to be present.
 
With only one problem ... no one can ever do, or create progressive music anymore ... because the process is already defined and the door is closed. The only thing you are asking is that different notes be spread around the requirements to make it so! ... how commercial this is, I imagine!
 
But then, I don't know why anyone in their right mind would want to redo Mozart yet again, electrified, and on top of it ... just name it something different ... like rock'n'roll ... and five years later call it progressive because I did not want to do Mozart, and thought Schoenberg would be more interesting with my animal bass sound and a screeching guitar player that played faster than JonM! I was thinking of entering it into the Shostakovich Contest, but then the Prog Archives would never bother ... because that could never be progressive, because all you want is a rehash of something that has already been done?
 
You do know that's very regressive, and not progressive of an idea, don't you?


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 14 2012 at 09:09
moshkito - you are defining a genre using the literal definition of a word. Actually, this SITE doesn't even define the genre that way! Have you seen the definition the site provides?
I like this definition a lot, provided by Keith Emerson (yes, THAT Keith Emerson):

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: June 14 2012 at 10:41
I agree with Keith.  However, I tried one Sigur Ros album, (), a few years ago and quickly gave up on them.  This thread is making me want to give them another try as I usually am not so hasty to dismiss music as I was with them back then (I think I never even fished the album on my one and only listen).  I happen to love ambient music (in the Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schultze mode) and have enjoyed some post rock stuff, so I think I owe them at least a complete listen (I still have the CD on my shelf).


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 15 2012 at 07:42
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

moshkito - you are defining a genre using the literal definition of a word. Actually, this SITE doesn't even define the genre that way! Have you seen the definition the site provides?
I like this definition a lot, provided by Keith Emerson (yes, THAT Keith Emerson):

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
 
Sorry to show you this, but you just contradicted yourself! Because what Keith says is ... exactly that ... anything goes to explore its potential!
 
"Sorry, but I'm not of the opinion that "anything goes" for the genre - I believe certain musical characteristics that ARE identifiable have to be present."
 
There are two kinds of music ... composed and not-composed! ... one is predictable, and the other is not. If all you like is "composed" because you are not sure what to make of the stuff that is not composed, I'm ok with that, but at least say it ... Keith being classically trained, knows the meaning of composition, but his forays into experiments were almost strictly about the equipment, not the keys ... if you unplug it all ... it's the same thing! It's not even an Art Bears, or a really off the wall thing ... so one could say that his potential was hellping get the new instruments and effects out there for all of us to enjoy ... but he is not a master musician that would "explore its potential" as much as he thinks, I do not believe. BUT, it sounded good, for a reviewer, or interviewer that did not know music and thought he was writing down a comment from God!
 
Besides all that, nowadays, you can do all this with a DAW, and you don't need a Keith to tell you ... so composition be damned, no? I can give you all the 172 possible combinations on the staff for the last 4 measures anytime you want! Ohh wait .. backwwards would be 344! Inside out ... would take a washing machine along with your laundry.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: June 20 2012 at 09:43

Shia Lebouf naked in their latest video makes them progressive, as it is common place for prog bands to add naked men to their album covers.  http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/shia-labeouf-sigur-ros/index.html?iref=obnetwork" rel="nofollow - http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/shia-labeouf-sigur-ros/index.html?iref=obnetwork



-------------


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: June 20 2012 at 10:09
What is it with Sigur Ros and naked men?  Whateva.

In other news, I loaned my dad some post-rocky stuff recently thinking he might like it.  Tried Mogwai a while back, it didn't take.  Godspeed You Black Nincompoop, nay again.  But he really liked Sigur Ros's "Aegais Byrgun" or however it's spelled.  I loaned him the rest of the SR albums I have.  Some things just click with certain people.  He's a jazz head, so I had no real reason to think he'd like it, except in the sense that he likes stuff that has superb sound quality (which Sigur Ros usually does).  Sometimes you just can't tell.


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran


Posted By: JS19
Date Posted: June 20 2012 at 11:47
Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

"Aegais Byrgun" or however it's spelled.

I actually feel relevant for once!


-------------


Posted By: Nick Dilley
Date Posted: June 20 2012 at 12:00
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

... 
Sorry, but I'm not of the opinion that "anything goes" for the genre - I believe certain musical characteristics that ARE identifiable have to be present.
 
With only one problem ... no one can ever do, or create progressive music anymore ... because the process is already defined and the door is closed. The only thing you are asking is that different notes be spread around the requirements to make it so! ... how commercial this is, I imagine!
 
But then, I don't know why anyone in their right mind would want to redo Mozart yet again, electrified, and on top of it ... just name it something different ... like rock'n'roll ... and five years later call it progressive because I did not want to do Mozart, and thought Schoenberg would be more interesting with my animal bass sound and a screeching guitar player that played faster than JonM! I was thinking of entering it into the Shostakovich Contest, but then the Prog Archives would never bother ... because that could never be progressive, because all you want is a rehash of something that has already been done?
 
You do know that's very regressive, and not progressive of an idea, don't you?


I would have said it differently, but I agree with this post.

WARNING: shameless self-promotion coming--i blog on this very topic: http://progressivediscussion.blogspot.com/ (please read from entry #1 if you have time!)

But anyway, Sigur Ros, in my opinion is definitely a progressive group for all of the reasons mentioned above. In my opinion, however, because "progressive music" can't be a static notion, they are in danger of being less and less progressive without bigger leaps in stylistic evolution between their records. I love Sigur Ros and am a fan of all their releases, and I believe I will continue to be a big fan, even if they don't change up their style.

But, I think that something can be progressive only for a certain amount of time. If it is a groundbreaking release, then it being canonized as progressive is more acceptable, but if it is a project that merely repeats what has previously broken new ground, then its time as progressive is limited (as too is the progenitor, but there we can reserve a bit more respect for it being an original.)

I am not saying not-progressive = not-good. please don't read it as such!




-------------
Progging the Rock, Rocking the Prog.

soundcloud.com/withinareverie
withinareverie.blogspot.com
facebook.com/withinareverie
Twitter: @WithinaReverie


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 21 2012 at 14:58
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

moshkito - you are defining a genre using the literal definition of a word. Actually, this SITE doesn't even define the genre that way! Have you seen the definition the site provides?
I like this definition a lot, provided by Keith Emerson (yes, THAT Keith Emerson):

"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
 
Sorry to show you this, but you just contradicted yourself! Because what Keith says is ... exactly that ... anything goes to explore its potential!
 
"Sorry, but I'm not of the opinion that "anything goes" for the genre - I believe certain musical characteristics that ARE identifiable have to be present."


Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:


You do know that's very regressive, and not progressive of an idea, don't you?

Musical characteristics define all musical genres.  That's how it goes.  There is a certain beat, structure, and collection of instruments that go with: swing, jazz, ska, bluegrass, classical, country...you name it, EVERY genre is defined by these characteristics.  Proggies think they're special, and they like to say "oh, that band that you like and I don't?  Well...they're not really progressive, sorry."  This is usually due to a literal interpretation of the english word "Progressive", and the thought process that if it's ever been done before, then it is not progressive.  But sorry, guess what?  Even the literal usage of the word "progressive" doesn't work like that!  You really think a person being "progressive" means that they are doing something NO ONE has ever done before?  Think about it - say you have a boss who tries to run things with the principle that men and women should be treated equally and receive promotions/raises/projects/etc. only based on their skills and how hard they've proven that they work.  You might say that boss is...progressive.  So...that means NO ONE has EVER been a boss and tried to treat men and women equally before...ever.  Right?  WRONG.  What it means is that what he is doing is uncommon and not part of the majority, really.  So even observing a literal interpretation of the word "progressive", you can't say "well, yeah, this band is playing a pattern where they have one measure of 5/4, one of 6/4, and one of 7/4, but compound time has been done before therefore they are not progressive."


-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: Nick Dilley
Date Posted: June 21 2012 at 16:13
Before we all get too emotional here--and I know it's easy to do so!!--I want to say that although I am on the "new" = prog side of things, I totally respect the classic interpretation of the prog genre without agreeing with it.

That being said, why don't we help each other understand one another's perspectives on this?

I, for one, think that Keith Emerson's definition WAS rather than IS a good definition for prog, particularly at his time. When ELP was riding high, what Keith described was new and innovative for rock. But think about music in general (prog IS music, right? Just like other music is music, right?) for a moment. Equating "progressive" with technically difficult music in terms of time signature, harmony arrangement, etc. really doesn't do justice to what "progressive" means--and the word means what it means. For example, there are plenty of other kinds of music that work in complex patterns, tonalities, time signatures, etc. That doesn't mean they are progressive right? Look at classical music (i realize saying "classical is an uber-generalization, but stick with me). You can examine countless pieces that play with time signatures and interesting tonalities (even atonal) but classic proggers would most likely not call that music prog. Think of African drum music. Tons of polyrhythms AND some traditions specifically based on taking a rhythm, playing it backwartds, turning it upside down, etc...like the way Keith described prog. Would you call this prog music? No, we wouldn't! It gets lumped together into World or Traditional or even "Ethnic."

If you want to say that prog is doing something that the majority of musicians can't or don't do, I understand that stance. I mean, saying that there is a small group of dedicated artists who like to remain in uncommon territory isn't that far removed from saying there is a small group of artists who like to only do new stuff or stuff that they personally haven't heard before.

The problem with trying to reconcile the two perspectives is that one really does not allow progressive to be a genre, because it shouldn't remain artistically static, while the other pushes to pigeonhole it into a convenient definition. And, I think, in light of this huge ideological dichotomy, this site should support the idea of two major camps or schools of thought. One way to clarify it is this--people always talk about prog, neo-prog, post-rock and whatever genre that is supposedly the true meandering lifeline of prog. To people who understand progressive as a genre, this sub-categorization makes sense and is required. But for those who see prog as an ever-changing notion, there is absolutely no need for such sub-genres. And its ironic that classic proggers subscribe to them in the first place because, it's like saying "okay here is what prog is. But these new guys who aren't staying true to the classic genre characteristics are prog too, but we'll call them neo-prog, and these guys who are even a few more steps removed are post-rock, which we'll say comes from prog, and that's how we'll put into a package." All this when prog musicians themselves (especially in the classic sense) are so averse to the idea of fitting into a package.

The reason you see Sigur Ros being discussed alongside Dream Theater alongside Rush alongside Radiohead alongside Deep Purple alongside King Crimson is because they were all at one point boundary-pushers (or still are). I think that it's a BEAUTIFUL thing that there is a place like this where that can happen, but sometimes I think some people on PA don't get why those diverse artists are all included here!

They're all prog. And, to the OP, understanding what is so prog about Sigur Ros just demands that you extend not necessarily your definition of prog but perspective into the music itself. For example, I know you like Dream Theater (DT). When you listen to DT, you know that the grooves Portnoy played are a combination of a lot of cool influences, and you know that Rudess and Petrucci are shredding like most people could only dream of and all the while they like to twist the pulse of the music with fun time signature play. But maybe when you listen to Sigur Ros, you missed the way they layer sound so completely different from most rock groups. And the textures they create go beyond the normal stuff ambient rock accomplishes by simply using trippy chorus, a bunch of reverb and repetitive, trance-inducing motifs. AND maybe it wasn't obvious on cursory listens that both DT and Sigur Ros have a common element: eschewing pop structure arrangements. Yes, they do it in very different ways, but that doesn't make the connection between them any less concrete. I would start there when looking for the prog in Sigur Ros.

Lastly, just because you mentioned it, I think when you apply "progressive" to a person, it has more to do with them pushing for something new, seeking innovation. No one can expect someone to be "new" all the time. When you look at art, if an artist is progressive, their art is supposed to (or at least, one would expect it to) reflect that push for something new; reflect the desire to progress. If it doesn't manifest itself in the art, then the art can't be called progressive. Also, I think that once something new is established, even though it can't really be "new" afterward, that doesn't mean that there is no room to fully explore that sound. I think that may be another point the two views on prog might clash over--how long does the period of "newness" last. The easy answer (in terms of pop) is however long the fad lasts, but I think that people on PA could give it a bit of a more thorough, nuanced treatment than that.

Okay, everyone play nice and learn from each other!!


-------------
Progging the Rock, Rocking the Prog.

soundcloud.com/withinareverie
withinareverie.blogspot.com
facebook.com/withinareverie
Twitter: @WithinaReverie


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 21 2012 at 16:26
Originally posted by Nick Dilley Nick Dilley wrote:

Before we all get too emotional here--and I know it's easy to do so!!--I want to say that although I am on the "new" = prog side of things, I totally respect the classic interpretation of the prog genre without agreeing with it.


I'm not emotional - sorry if it came off that way, just trying to emphasize certain things to help get my point across.  Sorry if you thought I was mad at you or anyone else.

To the rest of what you said...I think I agree with you...but now my head hurts.  Wink

No, after listening to a few Sigur Ros tunes, I definitely think I understand why they are categorized as Progressive here.  And the things is, people love to point out a certain band and say "well, these guys are progressive and it doesn't have to do with pigeonholing them into a certain set of characteristics", but the truth is, every single one of these bands, I can, and have, eventually found a song that fits the definition laid out here:
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition

That's why they're on this site, and for no other reason!  They don't get on this site if they don't display some or all of the characterizations laid out on that page.



-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: Argonaught
Date Posted: June 21 2012 at 20:53

I don't know what one could ever add to this most comprehensive and thoughtful discussion, but here is the proverbial two cents: "prog rock" doesn't really feel like a defined genre, narrowed down to a few easily recognizable identifiers, as. e.g. blue grass, blues or rock-n-roll. 

It's more of a catch-all category, covering several sub-genres that aren't necessarily closely related, but do share some important common characteristics. Such as: near-virtuoso musicianship. Innovation (there is no need to break molds for the sake of breaking molds, but some frontiersman spirit is an added value). Ability to convey complex thoughts, and to express sophisticated emotions through sounds and rhythm.  And, since there is a word "rock" there, I'd expect some melody, rhythm and structure.  

In other words, modern symphonic music? 

Having listened to early Sigur Ros, we did enjoy their soundscapes and the dreamy atmosphere. When Takk came out, we hoped that they were beginning to develop more color, impact and variety, which might have elevated them into the "modern symphony" category. This, obviously, hasn't come to pass.  





   




Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: June 21 2012 at 21:45
Look man, I don't like Sigur Rós, but I have to agree with Alex (harmonium.ro) here, it IS progressive rock, just different from some other "technical" bands. And even in the progressive metal department, which is possibly my favorite genre of progressive (rock) music, technicality means nothing: a band can have all the ability in the world and that does not make it progressive.

-------------


Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 22 2012 at 07:42
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Look man, I don't like Sigur Rós, but I have to agree with Alex (harmonium.ro) here, it IS progressive rock, just different from some other "technical" bands. And even in the progressive metal department, which is possibly my favorite genre of progressive (rock) music, technicality means nothing: a band can have all the ability in the world and that does not make it progressive.

Not sure who you're arguing with or why - I'm not sure anyone in this thread is contesting Sigur Ros' "progressiveness anymore", though I can understand how you might have gotten that impression since this thread became (as all do on this site, haha) a discussion of what defines the genre.


-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List


Posted By: -Radioswim-
Date Posted: June 22 2012 at 20:50
Sigur Ros is to me only progressive rock by the genre's association to Post-rock (which is ofcourse what Sigur Ros is)

To put it as much in my own words and quickley as possible post-rock (a sub genre of progressive rock) is a style of rock in which the instruments known conventionally (as well as other unconventional rock instruments) are used in order to create sound texture in unconventional ways, and less riffs and chords. The best word to describe post rock is textural, no matter how technically complex or simple it is (or how fast/slow)


-------------

Dust in the Kitchen


Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: June 22 2012 at 22:12
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Look man, I don't like Sigur Rós, but I have to agree with Alex (harmonium.ro) here, it IS progressive rock, just different from some other "technical" bands. And even in the progressive metal department, which is possibly my favorite genre of progressive (rock) music, technicality means nothing: a band can have all the ability in the world and that does not make it progressive.

Not sure who you're arguing with or why - I'm not sure anyone in this thread is contesting Sigur Ros' "progressiveness anymore", though I can understand how you might have gotten that impression since this thread became (as all do on this site, haha) a discussion of what defines the genre.


Oh, sorry then, I may have gotten the wrong impression from your post(s).

Originally posted by -Radioswim- -Radioswim- wrote:

Sigur Ros is to me only progressive rock by the genre's association to Post-rock (which is ofcourse what Sigur Ros is)

To put it as much in my own words and quickley as possible post-rock (a sub genre of progressive rock) is a style of rock in which the instruments known conventionally (as well as other unconventional rock instruments) are used in order to create sound texture in unconventional ways, and less riffs and chords. The best word to describe post rock is textural, no matter how technically complex or simple it is (or how fast/slow)


There are many post rock (and post metal) bands that are not considered progressive. The mere fact that a given band plays psot rock does not equal its association with progressive rock. Lamp


-------------


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 25 2012 at 10:07
Hi,
 
I think that Sigur Ros would be so confused with this set of articles as to drive himself nuts and say ... I don't need this!
 
Every artist has to live with his/her work ... not your ideas or mine ... and this is the part that we don't like to deal with! I would never give a damn what kind of music it is, if it came from my heart and ... that's that! You have to be a toal moron, to think that you are worried about a "style" before you even play it ... might be fun to do a little reggae, but not sure that most people do a style first and then compose something, except in the mariachi areas and of course, in the reggae lands! Prog in there is ... prohibited ... because the hair is not long enough, and they don't smoke stooges big enough! Evil Smile


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Nick Dilley
Date Posted: June 26 2012 at 01:34
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

might be fun to do a little reggae, but not sure that most people do a style first and then compose something, except in the mariachi areas and of course, in the reggae lands! Prog in there is ... prohibited ... because the hair is not long enough, and they don't smoke stooges big enough! Evil Smile


wha?  ...i think you smoke "stooges" big enough! LOL

I'm not trying to start something..but you either typed really fast or English isn't your first language. Wacko


-------------
Progging the Rock, Rocking the Prog.

soundcloud.com/withinareverie
withinareverie.blogspot.com
facebook.com/withinareverie
Twitter: @WithinaReverie


Posted By: Nick Dilley
Date Posted: June 26 2012 at 01:36
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:


I think that Sigur Ros would be so confused with this set of articles as to drive himself nuts and say ... I don't need this!
 


But this is spot-on!

I for one love to discuss this stuff. It's a great exercise in analysis and debate, but you're right, the artists being debated would probably be like, "wha??"


-------------
Progging the Rock, Rocking the Prog.

soundcloud.com/withinareverie
withinareverie.blogspot.com
facebook.com/withinareverie
Twitter: @WithinaReverie



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk