|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 16, 2006 23:09:12 GMT -5
Who's In and Who's Out:
Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Styx, Radiohead, Rush, Frank Zappa, Phish, Sigur Ros, Mars Volta, Tool, Muse???
I know Prog Rock pretty much sucks, but just for shits and giggles lets hear what you have to say...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 16, 2006 23:18:02 GMT -5
Prog sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ayinger on Jun 17, 2006 2:01:33 GMT -5
Styx?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jun 17, 2006 2:38:40 GMT -5
...says the man with the Neil Peart tattoo. |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 17, 2006 4:42:04 GMT -5
Styx? ? Yeah exactly. wtf? |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 17, 2006 6:11:25 GMT -5
So clearly this thread is really more about baiting people into an argument about prog, rather than choosing the actual bands perceived to be the genre's participants. So fuck it, I'll play. You know, for the shits and giggles. Personally, I'm not a full on prog guy. My heart of hearts lies searching for perfectly constructed three minute pop songs of all sorts. Nonetheless (one word Holzman  , my appreciation for artists who can operate effectively at the other end of the song structure spectrum is well documented too. Unfortunately for bands who get tagged with the "prog" label, there's an inherent silliness or sense of overbearing pageantry they have to work through before anyone even starts to hear them accurately. I'm not sure which bands could actually be pigeonholed into the "prog" genre from that list (I sure as fuck know Styx aren't prog). The traditional Rush/Crimson/Tool/Yes/Genesis collective probably fit the bill, that is if we were to properly define the bill. There seems to be some confusion with music that's actually prog in the traditional sense, and music that simply carries a great deal of depth or effort. Does having long songs make you prog? Does being a good musician make you prog? Does being respectably pretentious make you prog? I wouldn't call Radiohead prog if it meant they were being compared to Yes, but then I've always contended Tool have way more in common with Radiohead than they do with the metal bands they often get lumped in with. I suppose lyrically and thematically prog type bands are easy targets. The whole perception of dungeons and dragons and greasy haired boys in their bedrooms riffing for hours on end in hopes of being the next Alex Lifeson. Fair enough. On the other hand, it's always seemed like there's an unspoken jealousy in prog haters. The notion that "my favorite bands could never play with that much skill or create music pieces with such complexity", so the bands that can actually make big albums with big songs and big sounds are silly and unecessary. Rubbish. I spend most of my hours in the day listening to tin can bands make weird sounds with cool hooks in 3-4 minute chunks. They use limited resources and produce a product that's supposed to be more genuine or real. If I'm honest though, most of my current favorite bands are putting as much effort into stripping things down and capturing lo-fi as the prog bands who create extra layers and build things bigger. Is there really that much difference in the fundamental approach to craft in each extreme? |
|
|
|
Post by Ayinger on Jun 17, 2006 7:56:44 GMT -5
Who's In and Who's Out: Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Styx, Radiohead, Rush, Frank Zappa, Phish, Sigur Ros, Mars Volta, Tool, Muse??? I'd probably only define about 1/2 of these as true prog bands. Rush? uh-uh. Phish?? too much tie-dyed vibe. Mars Volta/Tool? they play with heaviness as much as speed..... Zappa had an avant-garde sense that was cerebral enough to be a peg or two above prog. The 'classic' prog bands would be in the likes of Yes, early Genesis, ELP, Moody Blues, Gentle Giant, Focus, VanderGraaf Generator......usually bands with banks of keyboards, and a semi-classical sense with lots & lots & LOTS of pomp to go with it (plus an album cover by Roger Dean). Consider too perhaps as 2nd wavers: Electric Light Orchestra, Kansas, Asia, Marillion. The term has gotten a bit expanded over the past 30 years I guess to include someone like latter-day Rush but I would call them a rock band with maybe some prog trappings....same with some of Queensryche stuff. A group like Dream Theater or Porcupine Tree would be a lot closer to being proggy than Rush IMO. For the record, I would have to have been considered a fairly big fan of Prog backintheday.......it took you beyond what Kiss, Aerosmith & Lynyrd Skynyrd were offering in the 70's..... |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jun 17, 2006 9:08:31 GMT -5
Who's In and Who's Out: Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Styx, Radiohead, Rush, Frank Zappa, Phish, Sigur Ros, Mars Volta, Tool, Muse??? I know Prog Rock pretty much sucks, but just for shits and giggles lets hear what you have to say... I stopped bothering about deciding which bands fit which genres years ago. I do know that Tool, Muse, Radiohead and Sigur Ros are 4 of my 5 favourite bands currently still active. The 5th being Modest Mouse, who, judging by Moon and Antartica probably aren't a million miles away from inclusion on your list. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 17, 2006 9:33:05 GMT -5
Who's In and Who's Out: Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Styx, Radiohead, Rush, Frank Zappa, Phish, Sigur Ros, Mars Volta, Tool, Muse??? I know Prog Rock pretty much sucks, but just for shits and giggles lets hear what you have to say... Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me. Like I say its all just for shits and giggles and infinitely more entertaining than talking about the latest plot line of Lost or who deserved to win American Idol... ...oh yeah, and I will defend Styx place in the Prog Rock lexicon to my 9 minute long keyboard solo grave... |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jun 17, 2006 9:50:49 GMT -5
So clearly this thread is really more about baiting people into an argument about prog, rather than choosing the actual bands perceived to be the genre's participants. So fuck it, I'll play. You know, for the shits and giggles. Personally, I'm not a full on prog guy. My heart of hearts lies searching for perfectly constructed three minute pop songs of all sorts. Nonetheless (one word Holzman , my appreciation for artists who can operate effectively at the other end of the song structure spectrum is well documented too. Unfortunately for bands who get tagged with the "prog" label, there's an inherent silliness or sense of overbearing pageantry they have to work through before anyone even starts to hear them accurately. I'm not sure which bands could actually be pigeonholed into the "prog" genre from that list (I sure as fuck know Styx aren't prog). The traditional Rush/Crimson/Tool/Yes/Genesis collective probably fit the bill, that is if we were to properly define the bill. There seems to be some confusion with music that's actually prog in the traditional sense, and music that simply carries a great deal of depth or effort. Does having long songs make you prog? Does being a good musician make you prog? Does being respectably pretentious make you prog? I wouldn't call Radiohead prog if it meant they were being compared to Yes, but then I've always contended Tool have way more in common with Radiohead than they do with the metal bands they often get lumped in with. I suppose lyrically and thematically prog type bands are easy targets. The whole perception of dungeons and dragons and greasy haired boys in their bedrooms riffing for hours on end in hopes of being the next Alex Lifeson. Fair enough. On the other hand, it's always seemed like there's an unspoken jealousy in prog haters. The notion that "my favorite bands could never play with that much skill or create music pieces with such complexity", so the bands that can actually make big albums with big songs and big sounds are silly and unecessary. Rubbish. I spend most of my hours in the day listening to tin can bands make weird sounds with cool hooks in 3-4 minute chunks. They use limited resources and produce a product that's supposed to be more genuine or real. If I'm honest though, most of my current favorite bands are putting as much effort into stripping things down and capturing lo-fi as the prog bands who create extra layers and build things bigger. Is there really that much difference in the fundamental approach to craft in each extreme? I didn't read any of this. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jun 17, 2006 10:03:20 GMT -5
I stopped bothering about deciding which bands fit which genres years ago. Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me. No need to excuse yourself, my dear chap. My comment was about my own apathy, and was not intended as an implied criticism of the thread. |
|
zorndeslammes
Streetcorner Musician
RICKSON BY ARMBAR!!1!!!!1!
Posts: 74
|
Post by zorndeslammes on Jun 17, 2006 10:34:25 GMT -5
If someone made a top, well, ANYTHING list (other than maybe a "top ten most overrated bands ever") that featured Sigur Ros and Radiohead, but not fucking HAWKWIND, they should be arrested and shot. None of the mid-late 90s prog-in-punk-clothing shit, with maybe the exception of a Cerberus Shoal, but probably not even them, deserve mention alongside THE MOTHERFUCKING HAWKWIND.
Space Ritual >>>>> everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 17, 2006 11:20:41 GMT -5
Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me. No need to excuse yourself, my dear chap. My comment was about my own apathy, and was not intended as an implied criticism of the thread. Well then let me try and incite some enthusiasm into your bones by dazzling you with my defence of including Styx in the Prog Rock lexicon. Here goes: What seperates Prog Rock from any other kind of Rock? Is it simply the keyboard solos? No. Is it the prerequisite of having a lead singer with a huge nose (or perhaps crossed eyes) and a high pitched voice that, at its best, sounds like Edith Bunker having an orgasm on a roller coaster? I dont think so. No, the first rule of Prog Rock is: NO songs About Chicks!!! But if you do have to put in a song about chicks, it must be very cynical and bitter towards not only one chick, but womanhood in general. Obviously Styx has broken this rule. 'Lady'? 'Lorelei'? 'Babe'? 'Dont Let it End'? All of these songs are not only celebrating the love of a woman, but doing so in a rather pussified manner. So that's it then, right? End of discussion. But wait. Wait one cotton-pickin minute. Before dismissing Styx from the prog Rock lexicon, let's go down the check list of some Prog Rock's tenats. Point #2: To be Prog Rock you must display outrageously delicious bombast over the seemingly most mundane things. Does Styx do this? Check. Take a look at Lorelei for instance. Have you ever heard of a man being so excited about the prospect of his girlfriend moving in with him than Dennis Deyoung dispays in this tune? It's not even that they are getting married or having a child or even that they are falling in love. Its simply that they are becoming roommates and he's screaming like he just won the lotto! that my friends is Prog Rock. Point #3: Gentleman's beards with early-mid 70s mullet. Before the mullet really came of age with the mid 70s' NHL 'classical' mullet, there was this transitional period. A period where the long haired hippies decided that instead of pulling their bangs behind their ears or constantly brushing them to the side, they would simply cut their bangs. What harm could that do? They'd still have long hair, right, only now they would actually be able to see. Unfortuneately this then gave the younger gneration the liscence to start feathering the sides of their hair, which eventually lead to chopping the sides off, just like the bang--leaving only the long hair in the back. But before that final step was taken that created the 'classical' mullet you had that early Prog Rock mullet of just the bangs cut. Do Styx have that? Check. Point #4. The Iconagraphy. Prog Rock album cover must have either a~ some sort of optical illusion or provactive thought-provoking image. b~ sort of Ruins, or mystical medievel artifacts OR c~ some kind of futuristic artwork. Does this apply to Styx? Check. Styx has all three. Witness the album covers of Crystal Ball, Grand Illusion, and Pieces of Eight. Furthermore Cornerstone and Kilroy was Here. Point #5. The concept album. Once again Styx comes trough with flying colors. Although they are not mental heavy wieghts that over-intellectualize every aspect of life, they do weigh in with some blue-collar, low-brow concepts that none the less fill the 'concept album' dance card. Point #6. Songs of Poltical Science 101 influenced Social commentary. Styx? Check. 'The Best of Times', 'Fooling Yourself', 'Renegade', 'Blue Collar Man', even 'Too Much Time on My Hands' are just a few that qualify. Point #7. The lofty, philosophical song, oftentimes intermersed with science-fictional escapism. How does Styx rate? 'Crystal Ball', 'Mr Roboto' and 'Come Sail Away' 'The Grand Illusion' Need I say more? Point #8. The actual music--the sonic quality. Is there keyboard solos? Intricate drum fills and chord progressions? Although Styx were not as over-indulgent as ELP or King Crimson say, they were very sound technically musicians. They have a very clean, presice and structured sound that becomes more appreciated the more you listen to. Point #9. This last rule, is once again one in which Styx would occasionally break, and that is No matter what the band must appear pretensiously serious at all times. No slapstick, no laughing and funny around on stage. The recording studio and the stage are serious places for serious music by serious people to deal with serious issues at serious venue prices. Styx although able to ride the heavy Bombastic with the best of them, also would joke around in a celebratory way (ala the early Beatles) and therefore break one f the most important of the prog Rock Rules. In conclusion, does the fact that Styx have a little fun from time to time on stage and in interviews or that they sing about chicks in a celebratory manner from time to really enough to disqualify them from the Prog Rock lexicon? Some say yes, but I say most of the Prog Rock bands are not going to fully compy with each of the Prog Rock tenats. Then I say give one listen to 'Crystal Ball', 'Mr Roboto', 'Come Sail Away' or 'The Grand Illusion'and there is only once conclusion you can come away with. Styx undenialbly belongs in the prog Rock lexicon. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 17, 2006 11:26:23 GMT -5
So clearly this thread is really more about baiting people into an argument about prog, rather than choosing the actual bands perceived to be the genre's participants. So fuck it, I'll play. You know, for the shits and giggles. Personally, I'm not a full on prog guy. My heart of hearts lies searching for perfectly constructed three minute pop songs of all sorts. Nonetheless (one word Holzman , my appreciation for artists who can operate effectively at the other end of the song structure spectrum is well documented too. Unfortunately for bands who get tagged with the "prog" label, there's an inherent silliness or sense of overbearing pageantry they have to work through before anyone even starts to hear them accurately. I'm not sure which bands could actually be pigeonholed into the "prog" genre from that list (I sure as fuck know Styx aren't prog). The traditional Rush/Crimson/Tool/Yes/Genesis collective probably fit the bill, that is if we were to properly define the bill. There seems to be some confusion with music that's actually prog in the traditional sense, and music that simply carries a great deal of depth or effort. Does having long songs make you prog? Does being a good musician make you prog? Does being respectably pretentious make you prog? I wouldn't call Radiohead prog if it meant they were being compared to Yes, but then I've always contended Tool have way more in common with Radiohead than they do with the metal bands they often get lumped in with. I suppose lyrically and thematically prog type bands are easy targets. The whole perception of dungeons and dragons and greasy haired boys in their bedrooms riffing for hours on end in hopes of being the next Alex Lifeson. Fair enough. On the other hand, it's always seemed like there's an unspoken jealousy in prog haters. The notion that "my favorite bands could never play with that much skill or create music pieces with such complexity", so the bands that can actually make big albums with big songs and big sounds are silly and unecessary. Rubbish. I spend most of my hours in the day listening to tin can bands make weird sounds with cool hooks in 3-4 minute chunks. They use limited resources and produce a product that's supposed to be more genuine or real. If I'm honest though, most of my current favorite bands are putting as much effort into stripping things down and capturing lo-fi as the prog bands who create extra layers and build things bigger. Is there really that much difference in the fundamental approach to craft in each extreme? I didn't read any of this. I read all of this. Riley has some good points ... but prog still sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Jun 17, 2006 13:21:59 GMT -5
I stopped bothering about deciding which bands fit which genres years ago. Same here. |
|
?
, my appreciation for artists who can operate effectively at the other end of the song structure spectrum is well documented too.
