The Miracle wrote: NO! ...TMV would make Johnny Rotten puke.

You do know that one of Johnny Rotten's favorite bands was Van Der Graaf Generator?

neurosis might qualify - they have their roots in punk.

Pure Punk no way but a diffuse sound that uses both influences is possible, both Prog and Punk claim Hawkwind as one of the main influences.

Goth can easily blend with Prog and comes from the Punk scenario.

Iván

nowayman121 said: Punk came out as a big skrew you to real musicians playing music

Very, very true words. You probally don't realize how close you are. The term punk was actually coined in the sixties referring to kids-young up-starts, in bands who tried, and in many cases succeded, in stealing the limelight from the big "important" bands. These up- starts were referred to as "punks" by the big bands. Kids who just played, roughly, but with great passion. Bands like The Seeds, Electric Prunes, Blues Magoos, Kingsmen, all had room filling attenion, much to the shagrin of the heavyweights. 

Those damn punk kids...

silly and naive thread,

punk upon its inception or renaissance period, approx (75-79) was just as "progressive" and forward thinking as the prog/psych of the late 60s/early 70s, its just the natural evolution of music, bands like Television, Suicide, Pere Ubu, Electric Eels, Gang of Four, Mars, Slits, etc etc, all incredible bands that took up the reigns of "experimentation and exploration" in rock music while the Prog scene swirled down the toilet of AOR and yes/genesis cloning (x) infinity, and through out the 80s and beyond where you're going to find the fresh ideas being explored in rock music is going to be in the Punk/hardcore and underground Metal scenes (industrial and electronic as well), Black Flag, the Minutemen, Flipper, Husker Du, Sonic Youth, FLux of Pink Indians, all the way into the 90s with sh*t like Moss Icon, Man Is the b*****d, Mohinder, Dystopia, etc.  To make the asumtion that "progressive" and "punk" cant don't coexist is insane, then again it depends on your definition of what "progressive music" ought to be, as well as what "punk" ought to be, I'd definitely like to get into this more, but I got to go for now,

and no, Coheed and Cambria and Mars Volta, aren't punk nor hardcore, just silly music for neophytes IMO,

Posted: March 28 2006 at 02:36 | IP Logged	http://www.progarchives.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=1910342&TPN=1">
mithrandir Newbie

silly and naive thread,

punk upon its inception or renaissance period, approx (75-79) was just as "progressive" and forward thinking as the prog/psych of the late 60s/early 70s, its just the natural evolution of music, bands like Television, Suicide, Pere Ubu, Electric Eels, Gang of Four, Mars, Slits, etc etc, all incredible bands that took up the reigns of "experimentation and exploration" in rock music while the Prog scene swirled down the toilet of AOR and yes/genesis cloning (x) infinity, and through out the 80s and beyond where you're going to find the fresh ideas being explored in rock music is going to be in the Punk/hardcore and underground Metal scenes (industrial and electronic as well), Black Flag, the Minutemen, Flipper, Husker Du, Sonic Youth, FLux of Pink Indians, all the way into the 90s with sh*t like Moss Icon, Man Is the b*****d, Mohinder, Dystopia, etc.  To make the asumtion that "progressive" and "punk" cant don't coexist is insane, then again it depends on your definition of what "progressive music" ought to be, as well as what "punk" ought to be, I'd definitely like to get into this more, but I got to go for now,

and no, Coheed and Cambria and Mars Volta, aren't punk nor hardcore, just silly music for neophytes IMO,

Good 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. 

Rocktopus wrote: Cardiacs is a great punk/prog band!

Exactly. They are really progpunk. Pretty good stuff.

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

Laurie Anderson is more prog then every of them

Ruins are as popular with hardcore punk fans as they are with prog heads, and Jello Biafra (Dead Kennedys) loves Magma.

See about 100 other threads on why punk and prog aren't polar opposites.

CryoftheCarrots wrote: A mate of mine recently gave me Epoche/Eclipse by Hawkwind and listening to that (never having heard them before) I couldn't help but think at times they sound like progpunk!!!!!

Hawkin are bad prog but punk not in million years

Cygnus X-2 wrote: The Miracle wrote: NO! ...TMV would make Johnny Rotten puke. You do know that one of Johnny Rotten's favorite bands was Van Der Graaf Generator?

Not to mention Can and Captain Beefheart.

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 - 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. 

And I thought prog was the response of the disillusioned working-class rebelling against figures of authority, rather than some silly "genre-war" or whatever the f**k you w**kers are on about.

Witchwoodhermit wrote: Posted: March 28 2006 at 02:36 | IP Logged http://www.progarchives.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=1910342&TPN=1"> 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 - 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.

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

I think you'll find it was Rough Trade.

Yours pedantically....

The stranglers described their own music as "angry psychedelia" and it was sort of progressive punk

Cardiacs are also a non-conventional punk band with keyboards and very well vrafted choirs

The Mars Volta could also be described as progressive punk

G_Bone wrote: The best example I can think of is the album Zen Arcade by Husker Du. It actually has keyboards and some decent instrumental parts, its a concept album, and well its hard to explain, but when I hear it I think prog

Bob Mould's first solo album, Workbook, also has some proggy touches - it's a largely acoustic affair with some lovely cello work and a suitably restrained rhythm section.

Hoover Dam by Sugar (Mould's post Husker Du band) has some very proggy synth flourishes.

Which doesn't make Husker Du/Bob Mould/Sugar candidates for inclusion in the archive, but it  does lend some more weight to the argument.

BaldFriede wrote: [QUOTE=lucas] The Stranglers never were punk; in fact they made use of real polyphony in some of their songs, a very advanced technique that even most progressive rock bands don't master. Only the music industry called the Stranglers "punk" because it sold well at their time. An album like "Black and White" is progressive and not punk! One will get you ten that if you play that album to someone who does not know it without telling him what band the music is played by, he or she would classify the music as "prog".

Like 'prog', the term  'punk' covered a mulitude of sub genres. And I have to disagree (this once) with you BF, to me the Stranglers were punk and most certainly had (originally) punk attitudes. I thought they were the punk Doors when I first came across them. Their No More Heroes, Hanging Around, Peaches were great punk hits at the height of the UK punk period, be it by a group of nearly 30's who for the most part had been around the music industry for some time (but so were the Police, all of whom had been involved in prog). And further I hear the Black & White album as the last of the Stranglers true punk albums -  it is interesting to hear what Fripp and Hammill do to the Stranglers' tune Tank with the Stranglers backing them - here Fripp is Fripp  but Hammill gives the clues in his punk delivery of why Johnny Rotten was into him and VdGG. As a reminder bands clumped in the punk genre in the mid/late 70's included XTC (btw Primus's cover of Making Plans For Nigel is punk), Police, Stranglers, Squeeze (sometimes I agree with the pundits that Glenn Tilbury and co. were the punk Lennon & McCartney), Joe Jackson (blimey he's now written a concerto!!!) and even Dire Straights (check out the double vinyl Hope & Anchor album released 78/79 to hear the breadth of bands doing punk)