Hey all;

Check out this link to an online BBC documentary on such 'new prog' bands as Mars Volta, Radiohead, and others.  Grandpa Wakeman is also featured!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/documentaries/progrock404p01.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/documentaries/progrock4 04p01.shtml

BBC Usually archives it's docs likethis for only a month or so, so catch it fast; it's pretty interesting, even though I'm not a big fan of most of the artists.

This doc actually pissed me off quite a bit.

People like John Peel and Mary-Anne Hobbs clearly have no idea what they're talking about.  Hobbs actually thinks that prog only means stupid costumes and ridiculous lyrics, nothing about how great and daring the music is.  And as for Peel, well, he's missed the point from day one.

But then, these are people whose musical lives are governed by what is 'in', so I don't expect much more from them.

As far as the new bands are concerned (and I can't believe that Zane Lowe referred to Dream Theater and Spock's Beard as dinosaurs!) some maybe have proggy tendancies, but they have to realise that being flamboyant with a "wall of sound" is not prog.  You need that extra something.

In short, the world would definately be a poorer place without progressive music, but I don't think the documentary puts this across convincingly.

Jim Garten wrote: Hey - I could be wrong, but I suspect there may be some out there who agree with me....... no doubt the detractors will let me know

hey Jim, i totally agree with your view 

my idea of progressive rock is the one you write down

i just love regressive rock

I'm with you too, Jim; call it what you want, just make it long, analog, and undanceable

And no one should be surprised to hear John peel pissing all over prog rock...it's been part of his job for 30 years.  Still, it's worth a listen just to hear Lord Rick's comments.

Jim Garten wrote: I would say (and this is my own completely subjective opinion ) that what we deem to be progressive rock, is in fact regressive rock, in that we want to hear long, well constructed songs/pieces of music, played by accomplished musicians, using particular instruments (Hammonds , Mellotrons , Double-Neck guitars , Unfeasibly large drum kits , Moogs etc etc), in a style that was considered 'progressive' in the 1970's.

Well gee Jim, I can't think of any way at all in which that is a bad thing. 

corbet wrote: Jim Garten wrote: ..we want to hear long, well constructed songs/pieces of music, played by accomplished musicians, using particular instruments (Hammonds , Mellotrons , Double-Neck guitars , Unfeasibly large drum kits , Moogs etc etc), in a style that was considered 'progressive' in the 1970's. Redstar wrote: ...call it what you want, just make it long, analog, and undanceable

I agree with all you guys! And for Muse: that is defenitely NOT prog

The BBC documentary was another missed opportunity. Instead of exploring what bands are out there, as usual, they preferred to wheel out a few commentators who just repeated the same age old cliches about progressive rock.

Personally, I find John Peel's comments appalling and dishonest. Let us not forget that the man made his name on a national radio network by championing progressive rock for years! When punk arrived, he swiftly moved on and started sl*gging off the music he had previously championed. With 'experts' like him, how can a documentary on the genre be any good?

Well, I guess 'evil' is too strong a word. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the likes of Peel go where the wind blows. In the UK he has achieved some sort of iconic status as a DJ who's always moving forward and looking for new things in music. Nothing wrong with that,of course. Except that he's been stuck on playing the likes of The Fall (overrated or what?) for far too long.