Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=132540 Printed Date: July 21 2025 at 04:02 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Progressive Indie?Posted By: Frets N Worries
Subject: Progressive Indie?
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 18:15
The massively popular genre that is Indie must have some prog in its right?
Do you know of any progressive indie bands? (Or maybe even discuss whether it should be added as a subgenre?)
------------- I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat...
Replies: Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 18:29
The Decemberists. Particularly the albums The Tain, Picaresque, The Crane Wife and The Hazards of Love.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: Golden Mean
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 19:45
Space Roar is a band from Detroit, Michigan, consisting of Ryan, Jon, Drew, and Griffin. In May 2016, they released their debut EP, "ADS 7251," which sounds like an archetype of progressive indie-rock and is their only release to date.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 21:41
I would say that alot of acts could be classified as progressive indie (and a lot that I really like). A lot of it would fit adequately in Crossover or Prog Related. A big one in PA that can fit in is Radiohead. And for a recent popular one, Black Country, New Road. I like a lot of progressive indietronica like music by Stereolab, Sufjan Stevens, Bjork....
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 22:21
Foals - Neptune
Foals - Heavy Water
------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 22:58
Frets N Worries wrote:
The massively popular genre that is Indie must have some prog in its right?
Do you know of any progressive indie bands? (Or maybe even discuss whether it should be added as a subgenre?)
The problem I have with this "genre" is that it is almost impossible to define. RYM defines "Indie Rock" as a subgenre of "Alt Rock", and especially when bands get a little more sophisticated, IMHO a label like "Alt Rock" becomes indistinguishable from "Art Rock", "Eclectic Prog" or "Crossover Prog".
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 05 2024 at 23:03
^ But sure, for some bands/releases it seems obvious to call them "Indie [Rock]" because that is how they have been marketed and described by everyone. I've just added the genre at AP, and we'll see who/how it will be used.
Posted By: Octopus II
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 01:22
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 06:43
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The problem I have with this "genre" is that it is almost impossible to define
exactly
I'd say topicstarter might like most of KScope stuff, it's the first thing I think about whenever anyone brings up the "prog indie" tag
Posted By: Frets N Worries
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 06:44
------------- I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat...
Posted By: Criswell
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 07:26
I might throw The Dear Hunter in the Indie bucket...
Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 07:41
Once and Future Band
-------------
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 08:22
I made a whole list not too overly long ago. So far i've detected 67 indie rock bands that are clearly progressive rock as well.
PROG INDIE ROCK & FOLK - DIY Outsider Ethos Meets Prog Complexities
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 08:39
Logan wrote:
I would say that alot of acts could be classified as progressive indie (and a lot that I really like). A lot of it would fit adequately in Crossover or Prog Related. A big one in PA that can fit in is Radiohead. And for a recent popular one, Black Country, New Road. I like a lot of progressive indietronica like music by Stereolab, Sufjan Stevens, Bjork....
I would say that all those are art rock, not prog. PA seems to have let many of them in which is acceptable for a crossover category but i wouldn't call any of those artists full-blown prog.
Most sites call them art pop, art rock, chamber pop etc. Good stuff for sure.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 09:37
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Logan wrote:
I would say that alot of acts could be classified as progressive indie (and a lot that I really like). A lot of it would fit adequately in Crossover or Prog Related. A big one in PA that can fit in is Radiohead. And for a recent popular one, Black Country, New Road. I like a lot of progressive indietronica like music by Stereolab, Sufjan Stevens, Bjork....
I would say that all those are art rock, not prog. PA seems to have let many of them in which is acceptable for a crossover category but i wouldn't call any of those artists full-blown prog.
Most sites call them art pop, art rock, chamber pop etc. Good stuff for sure.
^ I would much sooner call those Art Rock than Prog as well, but I also would describe those as progressive in their own ways. Fr those that don't know, Prog Archives had an Art Rock category before having Crossover Prog, Eclectic Prog and Heavy Prog. Some on the art rock side went to Crossover, some Prog Related, Some Eclectic. While I supported the split/ new categories and that was a reason why I was an early member of the Eclectic Team, I have rather wished we had a specific Art Rock category that would cover much, as I think of it, Prog-adjacent music.
Posted By: Mirakaze
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 10:53
I think Invalids and This Town Needs Guns fit this description!
Posted By: Cosmiclawnmower
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 13:15
Ive always really rated bands such as Super Furry Animals, The Beta Band, Gorky's Zygotic Mynci (and lots more seemingly now called 'post rock') from the 90's and 2000's as really forward thinking though perhaps more psych and art than prog. And there has always been two distinct 'indie'.. bands who have always been supported by and support truely independent record labels and 'indie' bands who are mainstream, massive and on corporate labels and just called 'indie' by the music media.
Labels such as Charisma were truely independent (at the start, 69-74/5 when bought out by phonogram) and labels such as Stiff and Rough trade continued that model.
-------------
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 14:19
< ="fc-dns-" role="" aria-label="Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Ination" ="0">
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 14:21
I have seen "Indie" bands deploy Prog sensibilities in their music.
The Chicago band "The Marquis'" (sic) had an amazing guitarist, and I was tapped to audition for bassist. When I went to jam with Todd, the first bass line I threw at him was John Wetton's muscular riff from "Lark's Tongues In Aspic Part 2." He responded with a high-energy blast of jazz-rock notes, it was fun!
Anything can happen. How about "prog country & western?" Dixie Dregs is all I've got!
------------- I am not a Robot, I'm a FREE MAN!!
Posted By: Criswell
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 15:01
cstack3 wrote:
Anything can happen. How about "prog country & western?" Dixie Dregs is all I've got!
I could almost put the Marshall Tucker band in that category...particularly their early albums...
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 15:47
Shudder To Think were pretty artsy and progressive for an indie band.
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 21:34
Mansun
Dean wrote the bio
https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=5082
Mansun biography MANSUN were an English Indie band from Chester whose brief three album career in the late 1990s could be regarded as the stalled beginnings of a resurgence in Progressive Rock in the mainstream (that has more recently been termed New Prog as a general catch-all for bands that have definite Indie/Alt Rock foundations but acknowledge Progressive Music as a source of influence and inspiration). Following on closely from RADIOHEAD in terms of success and recognition their debut album "Attack Of The Grey Lantern" entered the British album charts at number one on its release and with its conceptual story-line and self-revealing hidden track ('An Open Letter To The Lyrical Trainspotter') it quickly established itself as a favourite with fans as an album to discuss and debate at length.
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: February 06 2024 at 22:37
Criswell wrote:
cstack3 wrote:
Anything can happen. How about "prog country & western?" Dixie Dregs is all I've got!
I could almost put the Marshall Tucker band in that category...particularly their early albums...
Man, that Toy Caldwell was one amazing guitarist!!
------------- I am not a Robot, I'm a FREE MAN!!
Posted By: Golden Mean
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 02:42
The music of Iamthemorning could be another good example of "progressive indie-rock"
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 08:42
Posted By: Golden Mean
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 08:58
siLLy puPPy wrote:
^that's more progressive chamber pop
Certainly not 'Rock' in the classic sense of it, but their tunes aren't all that pop either, in my opinion.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 09:02
^ some of their albums are more chamber pop, some chamber folk
I'm not really sure where the term alternative rock yields to indie but many bands like Mansun are more referred to as progressive alternative rock or progressive Britpop of all things :D
Posted By: Golden Mean
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 09:12
siLLy puPPy wrote:
^ some of their albums are more chamber pop, some chamber folk
I'm not really sure where the term alternative rock yields to indie but many bands like Mansun are more referred to as progressive alternative rock or progressive Britpop of all things :D
Regretfully, the good ol' term 'pop-rock' has nearly gone extinct. Add 'progressive' and 'indie', and that might be a label for Iamthemorning.
Posted By: Dapper~Blueberries
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 09:42
Frets N Worries wrote:
The massively popular genre that is Indie must have some prog in its right?
Do you know of any progressive indie bands? (Or maybe even discuss whether it should be added as a subgenre?)
Well, The Dear Hunter is certainly one, and probably the most popular of this kind of subgenre. Same goes for Mew and Vylet Pony (though they are less indie rock and more indie pop) and maybe even King Gizzard And The Lizard Wizard & Thee Oh Sees.
Additionally that new Glass Beach record that came out last month could be considered indie prog.
------------- D~B
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 10:18
By the way "Indie" is an even worse genre label than "Prog" and that means something. I have heard such a lot of utterly boring and cliched Indie rock, to the extent that I sometimes tend to think whatever has anything interesting in it really should be ruled out from being called "Indie" by definition. Although what I know of what has been mentioned in this thread is certainly good stuff.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 10:22
Lewian wrote:
By the way "Indie" is an even worse genre label than "Prog" and that means something. I have heard such a lot of utterly boring and cliched Indie rock, to the extent that I sometimes tend to think whatever has anything interesting in it really should be ruled out from being called "Indie" by definition. Although what I know of what has been mentioned in this thread is certainly good stuff.
For sure. I don't know why these terms stick when they lose their original meanings. There is a distinct "indie" sound though for many of the bands labeled as such. Sort of out of tune and just slightly off if that makes any sense.
Agree with Dapper about Glass Beach. New indie prog rock that should be here.
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 11:08
The Pineapple Thief and Gazpacho (and even some of the middle period Porcupine Tree) seem to have alternative influences but I'm not sure about Indie.
Posted By: Golden Mean
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 11:43
New Jersey's Moon Rabbit Retreat nicely blends indie elements with a progressive rock style. They really couldn't be labelled as crossover prog or post-pock. These New Jerseyans are exactly that: a progressive indie-rock band. Their 23-minute-long EP should be listened to in its entirety.
Posted By: mellotronwave
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 17:14
Midlake ?
Posted By: Awesoreno
Date Posted: February 07 2024 at 21:39
The Dear Hunter sounds more like prog pop meets emo/pop punk to me. Though I guess there's somewhat of an indie vibe. When I think of "indie" nowadays, my brain immediately goes to more of the shoegaze-type stuff.
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 08 2024 at 10:33
mellotronwave wrote:
Midlake ?
Maybe also Wilco and Sufjan Stevens.
Posted By: Xeroth
Date Posted: February 08 2024 at 22:17
I've been thinking about this too. Most are probably related but still don't feel terribly proggy as the genre sits. I agree with some mentioning The Decemberists. One of my favorite alternative-folk indie artists is Radical Face. The concepts and unusual structures makes many of the songs feel progressive. Especially The Family Tree trilogy. The most recent production also is experimental and creative. Prog Folk maybe?
------------- I once was cool, but now I'm cold. Can you please turn up the heat.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 06:08
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
mellotronwave wrote:
Midlake ?
Maybe also Wilco and Sufjan Stevens.
Neither are progressive rock. Art rock yes but no prog. We rejected Sufjan not too long ago.
Posted By: Gordy
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 07:00
^Sufjan is currently undergoing evaluation in Prog Folk with two Yes votes. 🙂
Speaking of "progressive indie", we still need to hear your thoughts on AUA, Mike.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 07:17
Gordy wrote:
^Sufjan is currently undergoing evaluation in Prog Folk with two Yes votes. 🙂
Speaking of "progressive indie", we still need to hear your thoughts on AUA, Mike.
Well personally i find nothing progressive about him. Art rock / art folk isn't progressive.
I've not seen one other source that indicates he's progressive and i've heard most of his albums personally and don't find him even remotely progressive. I'll get to AUA when i get to it. Everything has been hectic and focusing on team duties has not been a priority.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 11:17
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Gordy wrote:
^Sufjan is currently undergoing evaluation in Prog Folk with two Yes votes. 🙂
Speaking of "progressive indie", we still need to hear your thoughts on AUA, Mike.
Well personally i find nothing progressive about him. Art rock / art folk isn't progressive.
I've not seen one other source that indicates he's progressive and i've heard most of his albums personally and don't find him even remotely progressive.
The way I see it Sufjan Stevens is a progressive artist in the truest sense of the word. But of course he isn't "Prog" as such. Sufjan would have fitted nicely in Art Rock when that was a sub genre
here. It's replacement Crossover is a better fit than Prog Folk imo. Here's a source that indicates he is progressive. Genre descriptions on some of his albums on RYM:
Illinois, Age of Adz, The Ascension: Progressive Pop
All Delighted People EP (but an hour long album): Progressive Rock, Progressive Pop
This song is closer to Gentle Giant than your average indie band really.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 11:38
Nothing progressive about Sufjan Stevens. I would not even pretend to understand the arguments behind that thinking. To me he is, to use a term I like from Mike's site, prog adjacent, but Prog or not, he is definitely progressive in his approach to music and the music definitely has progressive qualities.
I would have no issue with him in PA, but don't care that much how we classify genre-wise. But yes, I agree, he is truly progressive even if not at all Prog. To me he has enough in common with music and approaches under the Prog umbrella. Sticking to Prog-as-genre leads to less progressive music because a big part of being progressive to me is not being generic, changing approaches, being able to be unconventional. I would have thought Crossover if in PA, which split from our old Art Rock category.
Posted By: allmediareviews
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 15:52
MPAR - Modern Progressive Art Rock https://rateyourmusic.com/list/SoundscapeMN/favorite-modern-progressive-art-rock-albums-200-1/
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 19:06
Logan wrote:
Nothing progressive about Sufjan Stevens. I would not even pretend to understand the arguments behind that thinking. To me he is, to use a term I like from Mike's site, prog adjacent, but Prog or not, he is definitely progressive in his approach to music and the music definitely has progressive qualities.
I would have no issue with him in PA, but don't care that much how we classify genre-wise. But yes, I agree, he is truly progressive even if not at all Prog. To me he has enough in common with music and approaches under the Prog umbrella. Sticking to Prog-as-genre leads to less progressive music because a big part of being progressive to me is not being generic, changing approaches, being able to be unconventional. I would have thought Crossover if in PA, which split from our old Art Rock category.
I haven't heard that album in a while. That is definitely his most progressive album but to my ears it's more of an experimental orchestrated pop album much like The Beatles on Sgt Peppers. I'd be OK with Sufjan in Crossover but to my ears he's just not progressive rock. The debate between progressive meaning experimental and fresh vs progressive rock in the classic sense has been debated ad nauseam on this site with the consensus that this site is the latter and not the former.
If we were to simply call it the Prog and Experimental Archives then that would be much more inclusive and in that case Sufjan would surely fit in. To me he's art pop, art rock, chamber pop but not progressive rock. If he gets voted to be included though i'm not going to throw a tantrum. I'll just write some reviews because he's definitely crafted some EXCELLENT albums especially THE AGE OF ADZ.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 09 2024 at 19:53
Saperlipopette! wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Gordy wrote:
^Sufjan is currently undergoing evaluation in Prog Folk with two Yes votes. 🙂
Speaking of "progressive indie", we still need to hear your thoughts on AUA, Mike.
Well personally i find nothing progressive about him. Art rock / art folk isn't progressive.
I've not seen one other source that indicates he's progressive and i've heard most of his albums personally and don't find him even remotely progressive.
The way I see it Sufjan Stevens is a progressive artist in the truest sense of the word. But of course he isn't "Prog" as such. Sufjan would have fitted nicely in Art Rock when that was a sub genre
here. It's replacement Crossover is a better fit than Prog Folk imo. Here's a source that indicates he is progressive. Genre descriptions on some of his albums on RYM:
Illinois, Age of Adz, The Ascension: Progressive Pop
All Delighted People EP (but an hour long album): Progressive Rock, Progressive Pop
This song is closer to Gentle Giant than your average indie band really.
We evaluated SUFJAN on the Eclectic team recently and i've owned most of his albums for over a decade so i'm quite familiar with him and his style. I've listened quite intently too. Art rock is the perfect category for him but if he was to get on PA then i'd agree that CROSSOVER is the most appropriate place for him.
I have not heard the ALL DELIGHTED PEOPLE EP so maybe that will be his ticket for inclusion. I'll check that out soon :)
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 01:57
siLLy puPPy wrote:
We evaluated SUFJAN on the
Eclectic team recently and i've owned most of his albums for over a
decade so i'm quite familiar with him and his style. I've listened quite
intently too. Art rock is the perfect category for him but if he was to
get on PA then i'd agree that CROSSOVER is the most appropriate place
for him.
I have not heard the ALL DELIGHTED PEOPLE EP so maybe that will be his ticket for inclusion. I'll check that out soon :)
That's nice, but categorically stating that
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Art rock isn't progressive.
(I removed Art Folk as I don't really have an opinion about it) is
actually objectically wrong. Art Rock has always been
Progressive Rocks closest relative. It's completely normal for a band or
an album to be categorized as both. And it can be quite random as the
borders between genres aren't clear and there's so much overlap.
Art Rock
attempts to expand the bounds of Rock within conventional structures,
often using outside influences or experimentation for conceptual or
thematic purpose.
Progressive Rock bands
pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond
the standard rock or popular verse-chorus-based song structures.
...its
basically saying the same thing twice using different words. Art Rock rarely takes
things as a far as Progressive Rock does (sometimes it does though).
Albums such as King Crimson's Discipline or Peter Hammill's A Black Box are
normally considered Art Rock before Progressive Rock. But that doesn't stop them from being Progressive Rock as well. They're both. What separates one album from the other is often just more
of a feel or the sound of it - rather than the actual musical content.
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 05:33
I'm not sure whether I think Sufjan Stevens should be on PA, but he sounds more prog than Indie to me. But this may just be because the Indie genre label is such a mess, I mean, the term "Indie" originally refers to what kind of record label somebody is signed up to, which has no implications for the music whatsoever. According to that logic all prog is indie that isn't on major labels, and that's a lot. What has Sufjan Stevens in common with R.E.M.? Nothing at all.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 06:57
Saperlipopette! wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
We evaluated SUFJAN on the
Eclectic team recently and i've owned most of his albums for over a
decade so i'm quite familiar with him and his style. I've listened quite
intently too. Art rock is the perfect category for him but if he was to
get on PA then i'd agree that CROSSOVER is the most appropriate place
for him.
I have not heard the ALL DELIGHTED PEOPLE EP so maybe that will be his ticket for inclusion. I'll check that out soon :)
That's nice, but categorically stating that
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Art rock isn't progressive.
(I removed Art Folk as I don't really have an opinion about it) is
actually objectically wrong. Art Rock has always been
Progressive Rocks closest relative. It's completely normal for a band or
an album to be categorized as both. And it can be quite random as the
borders between genres aren't clear and there's so much overlap.
Art Rock
attempts to expand the bounds of Rock within conventional structures,
often using outside influences or experimentation for conceptual or
thematic purpose.
Progressive Rock bands
pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond
the standard rock or popular verse-chorus-based song structures.
...its
basically saying the same thing twice using different words. Art Rock rarely takes
things as a far as Progressive Rock does (sometimes it does though).
Albums such as King Crimson's Discipline or Peter Hammill's A Black Box are
normally considered Art Rock before Progressive Rock. But that doesn't stop them from being Progressive Rock as well. They're both. What separates one album from the other is often just more
of a feel or the sound of it - rather than the actual musical content.
To paraphrase Spock from Star Trek, "A distinction that makes no distinction is not distinct."
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 10:18
Lewian wrote:
I'm not sure whether I think Sufjan Stevens should be on PA, but he sounds more prog than Indie to me. But this may just be because the Indie genre label is such a mess, I mean, the term "Indie" originally refers to what kind of record label somebody is signed up to, which has no implications for the music whatsoever. According to that logic all prog is indie that isn't on major labels, and that's a lot. What has Sufjan Stevens in common with R.E.M.? Nothing at all.
Yeah, indie rock doesn't mean that any longer. It's sort of an umbrella term now alternative rock bands that take more liberties. Indie rock is more experimental, less reliant on traditional song structures and like punk, a DIY ethos. It's obviously not adequate to describe any band's overall sound. R.E.M. is now more accurately called jangle pop / power pop / alternative rock because they weren't exactly as experimental as Sufjan Stevans. Sure art rock and progressive rock are related but cousins aren't the same human being so neither are these related genres. For simplicity's sake, art rock seems like what we call crossover on PA for the most part. I'd be fine with Stevens there and not sure why he wasn't just suggested there first.
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 16:27
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Art Rock has always been
Progressive Rocks closest relative. It's completely normal for a band or
an album to be categorized as both.
I agree. The "All Music Guide to Rock" book that I purchased during the late '90s (and possibly also the website) doesn't make any distinction at all, describing all relevant artists as "Art-Rock/Progressive-Rock".
------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 16:39
^ they used to be the same thing but not any longer just like new wave used to refer to punk and post-punk as well as synthpop and what it means today
I consider all prog to be art rock but not all art rock to be prog because prog is art rock with technical complexities added
Doesn't seem that there is a consensus on this but in the end, i love it all anyway so who cares!
Posted By: Awesoreno
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 21:33
Yeah, I, too, consider "art rock" to be a wider umbrella that encompasses progressive rock. Prog is a form of art rock.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 10 2024 at 23:11
Awesoreno wrote:
Yeah, I, too, consider "art rock" to be a wider umbrella that encompasses progressive rock. Prog is a form of art rock.
Not in Europe, and especially not in the 1970s. Progressive rock was strongly connected to counterculture or underground music in its heyday in the early 1970s, whereas art rock was mainstream rock with an artistic approach.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 00:42
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Art Rock has always been
Progressive Rocks closest relative.
Indirect relatives only, and that's only because of the fact that both were under a rock-in-general meta-genre umbrella but two fundamentally different genres. These examples will enlighten you:
Original Art Rock from 1969, example 1
Original Art Rock from 1969, example 2
Original Progressive rock from 1969, example 1
Original Progressive rock from 1969, example 2
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 01:21
^You can pretty much make up the story you feel like. Can you really speak for all of Europe? I believe what I have written is pretty much correct, and it would be very easy for me to back it up with tons of written articles if I felt like it. I think I have a good understanding when of Art Rock and when Progressive Rock is more relevant. There are differences of course but the countercultural/mainstream differences are more cultural than musical. The musical differences aren't particularly fundamental. Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 01:27
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been synonymous. In Europe, no.
And I don't blame American fans for it. American proggy acts were actually both art rock and progressive. Kansas, the band, for example, has always been both art rock and progressive rock. Zappa as well. On the other side of Atlantic, however, Family has always been progressive rock only (although just before they were going to be disbanded, they switched to 'Rock' as a distinct genre, like, e.g., The Who was at the time), as well as King Crimson.
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 01:47
This is what https://www.allmusic.com/artist/van-der-graaf-generator-mn0000257544#biography" rel="nofollow - https://www.allmusic.com says about Van der Graaf Generator:
**********
Van der Graaf Generator
Art rock unit led by Peter Hammill, distinguished for a dynamic range rivaled only by King Crimson and for their surprising influence on British punk.
Active
1960s - 2020s
Formed
1967 in Manchester, England
Genre
Pop/Rock
Styles
Art Rock, Experimental, Prog-Rock
Group Members
Guy Evans, Peter Hammill, Hugh Banton, Nic Potter, David Jackson, Chas Dickie, Chris Judge Smith, Graham Smith, Keith Ellis, Nick Pearn
**********
Note the use of both "Art Rock" and "Prog-Rock" (which I highlighted) to describe this group.
------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 01:57
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
I'm European and I didn't claim that they were synonymous. But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres. Which is absurd.
Just take a look around. Or ask other people here. You won't find much
if any backing. Sometimes - or often personal experiences or truths
aren't as representative as you may think.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 01:59
I prophesy disaster wrote:
This is what https://www.allmusic.com/artist/van-der-graaf-generator-mn0000257544#biography" rel="nofollow - https://www.allmusic.com says about Van der Graaf Generator:
**********
Van der Graaf Generator
Art rock unit led by Peter Hammill, distinguished for a dynamic range rivaled only by King Crimson and for their surprising influence on British punk.
Active
1960s - 2020s
Formed
1967 in Manchester, England
Genre
Pop/Rock
Styles
Art Rock, Experimental, Prog-Rock
Group Members
Guy Evans, Peter Hammill, Hugh Banton, Nic Potter, David Jackson, Chas Dickie, Chris Judge Smith, Graham Smith, Keith Ellis, Nick Pearn
**********
Note the use of both "Art Rock" and "Prog-Rock" (which I highlighted) to describe this group.
It's OK. We live in a globalised world of multiplied tags now. "All Music" site staff combined tags don't surprise me at all. However, in the seventies, when progressive rock was a current genre, it wasn't the case; then there was one tag for one band. Hence, hardly anybody in Europe labelled Van der Graaf Generator as art rock, i.e., the same as 10cc or Supertramp were labelled back then. Because art rock meant pop-rock with an artistic attitude. But pop-rock also meant non-progressive.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 02:06
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 02:43
Saperlipopette! wrote:
The way I see it Sufjan Stevens is a progressive artist in the truest sense of the word.
The term "progressive" in music should not be taken literally ("in the truest sense of the word") because music does not progress. If the music were to progress, it would mean that it was going somewhere. Any musicologist will tell you that this is not the case.
Progressive rock is just a term that denotes the aggregate state of part of the underground music scene in Europe at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s.
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 02:52
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
I don't doubt that this was true in whatever part of Europe you grew
up (edit: I do actually doubt it, but I was trying to stay nice and polite:). Europe is a great many different things though. My dad or all those
older guys I share musical interest with - never
make your kind of "fundamental" distinctions between groups or genres.
ELP or Camel doesn't represent any kind of underground and Velvet Underground or Family were never mainstream anyway. I'm
glad we approach this music from our near past in a less
cultural and more of a musical way. Because your truths from the past are anecdotal,
and a lot of them are irrelevant and wrong. The music lives
on. Although it doesn't change, fifty years later we hear it differntly. Using a
mainstream/underground
divide that makes no sense in describing the actual music in question is useless to me.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 02:56
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
Using a
mainstream/underground
divide that makes very little sense
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 02:58
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
The way I see it Sufjan Stevens is a progressive artist in the truest sense of the word.
The term "progressive" in music should not be taken literally ("in the truest sense of the word") because music does not progress. If the music were to progress, it would mean that it was going somewhere. Any musicologist will tell you that this is not the case.
Progressive rock is just a term that denotes the aggregate state of part of the underground music scene in Europe at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s.
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist.
I think you and your musicologist ways are stuck in definitions and ways of seeing this that doesn't feel particularly relevant to me. I'm not interested in a form of Progressive Rock that isn't allowed to be and mean differnt things at differnt times. That's for genres that belong in a museum. And you can think of that in whatever way you like.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 03:24
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 03:31
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
Using a
mainstream/underground
divide that makes very little sense
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 03:46
The Dark Elf wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
Family and King Crimson are labeled as both Art Rock and Progressive Rock - everywhere.
Maybe
in America. In America, art rock and progressive rock have always been
synonymous. In Europe, no.
But
you claim they are two fundamentally different genres.
Of course, because in Europe back then, mainstream and underground music were two fundamentally different things.
Using a
mainstream/underground
divide that makes very little sense
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid,
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 04:12
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
The artistic distance of genre-wise positions between American indie-folk star Sufjan Stevens and, e.g., a French progressive band like PoiL, is roughly the same as the distance between some 60's easy rockers from Laurel Canyonand, e.g., The Plastic People of the Universe from 1968 Prague.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 04:23
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
The distance of artistic positions between Sufjan Stevens and, e.g., PoiL, is roughly the same as the distance between some easy rockers from Lauryl Canyon and, e.g., The Plastic People of the Universe from 1968 Prague.
No need to compare with PoiL because I never did. But you can come back and let me know if you still think Sufjan Stevens is purely an American indie folk-rock artist, after you listened to a handful of these albums of his: Meditations, Lamentations, Revelations, Celebrations, Incantation, Reflections, The BQE, The Age of Adz, Planetarium, The Decalogue, Aporia, The Ascension, Enjoy Your Rabbit... etc...
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 04:28
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
The distance of artistic positions between Sufjan Stevens and, e.g., PoiL, is roughly the same as the distance between some easy rockers from Lauryl Canyon and, e.g., The Plastic People of the Universe from 1968 Prague.
No need to compare with PoiL
Ok, let's imagine that I remove French underground band PoiL from the example and put Napier's Bones from England. What changes? Nothing. Sufjan Stevens is never going to be progressive rock.
And he doesn't need to be progressive, because he is an indie folk-rock star, and a progressive tag doesn't mean a badge of honour.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 04:41
^ No never to you he will I suppose. But I never cared much for strong, uninformed opinions anyway (I haven't labeled him as Progressive Rock myself, btw). If you removed PoiL and replaced it with Napier's Bones from
England not much would change. I agree. You would still come across like you don't know what the hell you're talking
about - and that it's blatantly obvious that you have no idea whatsoever
about the musical contents of any of the albums I challenged you to
listen to. Because that's the only possible reason for reducing Sufjan Steven's body
of work to those of an indie-folker (it doesn't even cover particularly well the
albums I'm guessing you're somewhat familiar with).
Posted By: ProgExpo
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 04:44
Saperlipopette! wrote:
an indie-folker
Surely, Sufjan Stevens is an indie-folk rocker with folktronica here and there in his songs.
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 04:58
^You're comical in pretending that you know a thing of two about
something that you
clearly don't. You obviously have no qualms postualting strong opinions
backed by nothing but superficial knowlegde. I'm reading all your posts
here from now on with this in
mind.
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 05:45
ProgExpo wrote:
music does not progress. If the music were to progress, it would mean that it was going somewhere. Any musicologist will tell you that this is not the case.
I don't think I can agree with this. All music progresses from the start to the finish. But some music is perceived to portray a strong sense of motion, while other music can sound quite static.
An example of a track with a strong sense of motion ("groove") is Jeff Beck - Air Blower:
An example of a section of music which sounds almost static is Van der Graaf Generator - Presence of the Night (section from A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers):
------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 09:55
ProgExpo wrote:
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 10:55
^ The same can be said of "cult artists".
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: PeterO.
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 11:45
The Dark Elf wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
If the boundaries of the fields of underground and mainstream are that fluid, it would mean that artists can go from the underground to the mainstream, earn some money, and then return to the underground. However, this is not the case. An underground musician can collaborate with songwriters to create mainstream music with reminiscences of their underground stuff., and then book mainstream shows with the help of a management team to make their songs radio-friendly, get their music licenced for movie and television show usage, and even advertise. Underground musicians have the option of hiring a producer to change their sound and take it in a more popular direction. But this is selling out, and then there's no going back; they never return to the underground.
Posted By: Gordy
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:01
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
That's Svet for you.
I love how lively the Sufjan discussion has gotten, even moreso than at Folk. Mike, I simply didn't suggest him to Crossover initially as I thought he would get a chilly reception. I certainly wouldn't mind reading what they, or Logan in Prog-Related, ultimately think before proceeding over at PF, where we are trying to convince Hugues to join us and make the decision unanimously.
Posted By: PeterO.
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:09
Gordy wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
That's Svet for you.
I love how lively the Sufjan discussion has gotten, even moreso than at Folk. Mike, I simply didn't suggest him to Crossover initially as I thought he would get a chilly reception. I certainly wouldn't mind reading what they, or Logan in Prog-Related, ultimately think before proceeding over at PF, where we are trying to convince Hugues to join us and make the decision unanimously.
Adding artists like Sufjan Stevens to a progressive rock database means only further diluting the Progarchives as such.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:20
PeterO. wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
If the boundaries of the fields of underground and mainstream are that fluid, it would mean that artists can go from the underground to the mainstream, earn some money, and then return to the underground. However, this is not the case. An underground musician can collaborate with songwriters to create mainstream music with reminiscences of their underground stuff., and then book mainstream shows with the help of a management team to make their songs radio-friendly, get their music licenced for movie and television show usage, and even advertise. Underground musicians have the option of hiring a producer to change their sound and take it in a more popular direction. But this is selling out, and then there's no going back; they never return to the underground.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre. It is a time period. It is transitory. You are "underground" until you are not. When the music you compose is evidently so good and interesting that it piques the public's attention, then a performer reaches a critical mass of fans and listeners that literally propels them into the vacuous term "mainstream" (as in, "hey, I've sold enough albums that I can actually eat").
To quote a line from a definitely non-underground band, "What were vices are now habits." What was once "underground" is now "mainstream". I will quote a composer who, in all sense of the word, was "underground", but who rose to prominence and hence was no longer "underground," Igor Stravinsky, from his Poetics of Music In the Form of Six Lessons:
"I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself...The tone of a work like the Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established convention would beknown as revolutionary."
Sh*t happens. All the time.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:34
Gordy wrote:
Saperlipopette! wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
By the way, Sufjan Stevens has nothing to do with progressive rock. He is an American indie folk-rock artist
That's a perfect way of telling me you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about - without telling me. Thank you.
That's Svet for you.
So I've come to learn. Creating a new account after less than 80 posts as ProgExpo, followed by "Thanking" all his own comments - and then backing himself in the comment section - now as PeterO. I guess he knows no one else is gonna support his inane takes. It's pathetic. I'm going back to ignoring him as I've done several times to previous accounts of his.
Posted By: PeterO.
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:39
The Dark Elf wrote:
PeterO. wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
ProgExpo wrote:
I'm afraid that the distinctions between art rock, which is mainstream rock with an artistic bent, and progressive rock, which is a subgenre of underground music, are too metaphysical for you.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would suggest you are not metaphysical, but constipated.
The definitions of "art rock" and "progressive rock" are fluid, and prog was essentially "underground music" until it wasn't (and that was very early on), and many bands later considered "prog rock" were earlier referred to as "art rock". As a matter of fact, the transitory term "underground music" is an inapt reference for music in general as it does not define a specific genre.
ProgExpo wrote:
In my humble opinion, it is not at all fluid. Naturally, a lot of underground musicians wanted to make it big in mainstream rock, especially in the U.S. because of its absurdly large market, which opens up some (unimaginable for Europe) possibilities, yet the songs they wrote for the ears of underground music freaks have nothing to do with mainstream rock songs they supposedly did later, whether they are artistically inclined or not.
It is fluid, very much so. Genres, and particularly rock genres, are and were often transitory and ephemeral. I'm not sure what country you come from (the "Ottoman Empire" being a bit vague), but you neither speak for all of Europe, nor for most fans of prog rock.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre of music, but a transitory state of being for certain bands in any number of genres. A band is underground until it is not, no matter the genre it gravitates toward. Psych, prog, punk, metal, hip hop, indie all had their moments of being underground -- and then, suddenly, they were not.
And genres within rock are very fluid:
Genesis was underground, then art rock, then prog, then pop.
Pink Floyd was undeground psych, then art rock, then prog, then more standard rock with prog elements.
Jethro Tull has morphed into any number of genres (blues/jazz-rock, hard rock, prog, prog-folk, even metal according to some industry sources).
A band with idiosyncratic methods and/or non-mainstream compositional style remains "underground" until that moment they are not. It is a time period, not a genre.
If the boundaries of the fields of underground and mainstream are that fluid, it would mean that artists can go from the underground to the mainstream, earn some money, and then return to the underground. However, this is not the case. An underground musician can collaborate with songwriters to create mainstream music with reminiscences of their underground stuff., and then book mainstream shows with the help of a management team to make their songs radio-friendly, get their music licenced for movie and television show usage, and even advertise. Underground musicians have the option of hiring a producer to change their sound and take it in a more popular direction. But this is selling out, and then there's no going back; they never return to the underground.
Again, "underground music" is not a genre. It is a time period. It is transitory. You are "underground" until you are not. When the music you compose is evidently so good and interesting that it piques the public's attention, then a performer reaches a critical mass of fans and listeners that literally propels them into the vacuous term "mainstream" (as in, "hey, I've sold enough albums that I can actually eat").
To quote a line from a definitely non-underground band, "What were vices are now habits." What was once "underground" is now "mainstream". I will quote a composer who, in all sense of the word, was "underground", but who rose to prominence and hence was no longer "underground," Igor Stravinsky, from his Poetics of Music In the Form of Six Lessons:
"I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself...The tone of a work like the Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established convention would beknown as revolutionary."
Sh*t happens. All the time.
Underground music is a meta-genre that encompasses a wide variety of genres, including progressive rock. These subcultures and genres were frequently established with genuine enthusiasm by talented artists. Performers in this meta-genre stay apart from the mainstream music scene. Consequently, underground music encompasses musical styles and subgenres that are rarely heard on the radio. Regardless of the experimental styles of jazz, weird electronic music, progressive rock, or other genres, these kinds of music are referred to as "underground music."
Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 12:40
Why is 🌎onio always acting so weird? All the sockpuppet accounts, alter egos, strange behavior. My guess would be that he might have some kinda autism spectrum.
-------------
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 13:17
PeterO. wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
Again, "underground music" is not a genre. It is a time period. It is transitory. You are "underground" until you are not. When the music you compose is evidently so good and interesting that it piques the public's attention, then a performer reaches a critical mass of fans and listeners that literally propels them into the vacuous term "mainstream" (as in, "hey, I've sold enough albums that I can actually eat").
To quote a line from a definitely non-underground band, "What were vices are now habits." What was once "underground" is now "mainstream". I will quote a composer who, in all sense of the word, was "underground", but who rose to prominence and hence was no longer "underground," Igor Stravinsky, from his Poetics of Music In the Form of Six Lessons:
"I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself...The tone of a work like the Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established convention would beknown as revolutionary."
Sh*t happens. All the time.
Underground music is a meta-genre that encompasses a wide variety of genres, including progressive rock. These subcultures and genres were frequently established with genuine enthusiasm by talented artists. Performers in this meta-genre stay apart from the mainstream music scene. Consequently, underground music encompasses musical styles and subgenres that are rarely heard on the radio. Regardless of the experimental styles of jazz, weird electronic music, progressive rock, or other genres, these kinds of music are referred to as "underground music."
I was willing to play along, Svetty, really, I was. But when you plop in another sock puppet into this thread out of nowhere just to try to bolster your inane need to segregate music into your little bins of musical iotas, then it's time to move on.
"Underground music" is only "underground" until it is not. It is not a distinct genre, never has been, never will be. "Radio" no longer exists as a viable medium to measure musical acceptance. Who the f*ck listens to radio anymore?
When I was a pre-teen and teen growing up in the Detroit area in the late 60's and early 70's, FM radio stations broadcast the subversive, the non-mainstream, the "underground" music of the time. Whole albums, album sides and live broadcasts. Sometimes even in quad. By 1975, these station ceased to broadcast the unique and revolutionary, and had become, in essence, "classic rock" stations. But for a time in my formative years, I got to hear King Crimson, The Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, MC5, Iggy and the Stooges and a host of other bands mainstream radio wouldn't touch. I stopped listening.
But I am uninterested in your multiverse of musical meta-nonsense. Nor do I care to discuss your bin approach to compartmentalizing music into incomprehensibility. Never have been. And please, don't start posting endless streams of YouTube vids of old Yugoslav bands.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: allmediareviews
Date Posted: February 11 2024 at 15:23
Frets N Worries wrote:
