Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
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.
|
There were, as you say, hundreds or such bands. Of course a lot of them had their own sound. "Most", however, which was the word I used, almost certainly did
not.
Quote:
Because prog bands didn't fuse genres. 
|
Congratulations! That was not my own criteria. It was implied/suggested by an earlier poster. Read previous posts first.
Quote:
|
They're not called prog for reasons I already explained. Being progressive dosen't automatically make you prog. Prog has several characteristics.
|
This is exactly what I was saying. Being "progressive", whatever that means (anything new and inventive could equally be as "progressive" as anything else), evidently has a meaning of its own as laid out by those in the prog movement/community. It's whether or not their conventional use of the term covers a band that matters, from their standpoint. For the rest of the world, it's whether the general conventional use of the term applies. That's pretty damn hazy grey area.
You don't get what I'm saying. There might be certain elements that are PROTOTYPICALLY prog. You might find bands however that don't particularly embody those prototypical elements yet are included under "prog" all the same for other reasons. Hence why it's more of a culture than a sound. Clearly I was not saying there are no prototypical stylistic elements of the sound. That would be absurd.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That's just my point. It's so broad that the whole catalogue of bands cannot be captured under some set stylistic criteria. The same can be said of punk and metal, as you say. It could equally be argued that, while having prototypical examples, they are more cultures than clearly unambiguously defined sounds.
As for the claim that "bands who don't consider themselves prog are still labeled as such", then this is misleading. In such cases, labeling them as prog would be controversial and disputed. A band only really fit within something if the classification can be generally/conventionally regarded as accurate.