Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen
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.
|
If your idea of prog is Styx and Asia then yes.
Quote:
|
Congratulations! That was not my own criteria. It was implied/suggested by an earlier poster. Read previous posts first.
|
I'm sorry. I just thought you were suggesting that prog had no diversity, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Quote:
|
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.
|
People call it "prog" for a reason, and not just to shorten the name. It makes it easier to seperate it from other kinds of rock music that could also be considered progressive.
If you don't think it should be called progressive rock, then call it prog rock.
My point is. Its as if you're trying to say the genre dosen't even exist, which is wrong.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Every band I listed on the prog ed article uses those elements in some way or another.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Just becauses its broad dosen't mean it dosen't exist. And genres do need some kind of criteria. Or else some idiot will start calling every band he hears prog rock.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Does anyone dispute that Motorhead are metal even though Lemmy claims they are not?
Quote:
|
A band only really fit within something if the classification can be generally/conventionally regarded as accurate.
|
If 100% objective criterias for genres exist that would be true. But they don't.
I'm not claiming my criteria to be completely objective. But I worked pretty hard to make the prog ed neutral and reliable.