Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
I don't think you get it. Progressive rock is not just rock music that is progressive, if this was true that would make Talking Heads prog (who are not).
Progressive rock is defined by a criteria I have alrady explained, sure its a broad term, but that goes with most genres. Point is progressive and "prog" is not the same, prog is not just the general act of being progressive it actually is a genre with its own classfications. While there are many prog bands with an original sound, theres nothing that makes Flower Kings less of a prog band, less progressive sure, but they fit the criteria of a prog band and so thats what they are.
So once again the two words are not mutually exclusive.
Bjork = Progressive but not prog.
Dream Theater = Not progressive and unfortunately prog.
|
I meant it in the sense of "prog" and the "criteria of a prog band". Plus, I was only trying to capture the types of sentences you find evangelical proggies using: "Band X, load of piffle. Not progressive at all."
Quote:
|
See this is the problem. I don't see that many prog fans being this way. I think any prog fan thats not a complete moron should know that every genre is different and isn't meant to function the same way.
|
Well I'm just referring to the types who do. Of course not all are like that, just like not all indie fans are Pitchfork twonks.
Quote:
|
I think you confuse originality with creativity, these terms are also not mutually exclusive. You can be un-original and still be creative.
|
If you wanna take "creative" in its literal sense then yeah, fine, but to me that's just special pleading. Creative, in an artistic context, is conventionally interpreted as innovation and originality.