Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen
Most of the 70s prog bands weren't "very experimental" or groundbreaking; they tended to ape each other.
|
Wrongo. From the 70s alone I can name you a lot of 70s prog bands that had their own unique sound and sounded considerably different from another.
Quote:
|
Does that mean that most of them should not be considered prog? And you haven't answered the question: what about punk bands that actually were very experimental and groundbreaking, and who fused the music with various other genres (e.g. reggae, dub etc.)?
|
Because prog bands didn't fuse genres.
Quote:
|
Why don't we call them prog too? Why don't we call all the "very experimental" and groundbreaking indie bands today "prog"? I guarantee you, they've broken a great deal more sonic ground than the likes of Porcupine Tree and Tool.
|
They're not called prog for reasons I already explained. Being progressive dosen't automatically make you prog. Prog has several characteristics.
Quote:
|
Like with the case of "rock", there really aren't any stylistic elements that define or qualify something as "prog".
|
Oh how wrong you are.
http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-meta...on-thread.html
Quote:
|
Like grunge, it's more of a movement than a sound. You only get in by being associated with the fanbase.
|
No. Its both a movement and a sound. But honestly its more of a sound, because some bands who don't consider themselves prog are still labeled as such. Granted the sound of prog is incredibly broad, but whats so wrong with that? The same could be said for punk and metal.
And prog is considerably larger then grunge. Grunge is limited to 20 or 30 something bands. Prog on the other hand. Progarchives alone has over 3000 bands listed. Yes the qualifications for being prog are broad, but they are there.
Anyway. Velvet Underground are not prog. They were however incredibly progressive and were one of the most important and innovative bands of their time. Anyone who denies that is a fool.