boo boo

Thank you for only proving my point.

Radiohead are not a prog band (though I think they have material that qualifies as prog), but I think Muse are, for Origin of Symmetry alone.

And Marillion, they may not be progressive, but you'd have to be insane to think they're not prog. Though I'm not a fan of them, I have to admit they played a very imporant role in keeping prog alive throughout the 80s.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Comus

You mean keeping prog ****? Had they been around in 1971 they'd be prog. But just being derivative doesn't really qualify. Same goes for muse.

__________________
last.fm

boo boo

Ok. This is my problem with you.

Marillion are not prog because they sound like a 70s prog band.

Radiohead are not prog because they don't sound like a 70s prog band.

Make up your mind.

There's a difference between prog and progressive, and if simply being a rock band that is progressive makes you prog, then Radiohead is undeniably prog.

But I think it's agreed upon by most people that prog is now associated with the original movement and post 70s bands who are considered prog are usually derived from that movement in some way.

Marillion are most certainly prog. It's ridiculous to say they're not a prog band because they sound like one.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Comus

They emulate the sound, but not the actual spirit of the genre. Also Radiohead aren't prog becuase they don't do anything remotely prog.

I don't want to Argue Marillion, they're one of those bands that have found success amongst prog fans pretending to be a prog band. Prog fans are stupid, especially progarchives.com fans. I agree that on progarchives, you do have to comment on the "proggyness" of an album. But a lot of people take it way too far. And do it on prog-related reviews as well. Giving the more proggy albums a higher score while slating the arguably better, less prog related albums.

Progarchives are good, but only to a certain point. They get a lot wrong in my opinion. The problem is, if a majority of people on progarchives likes a band, there's a lot higher chance they'll get added, especially amongst the admins. Also saying a band is prog because of a few songs is pathetic, especially considering the only pallatable format for prog is the album setting(well, live works too).

So yeah i've gone off topic. Basically the sound does not qualify for prog, it needs the underlying principles. Also lyrical content doesn't count either or Green Day would be the main prog band of our generation. But of course, prog like indie is a pretty useless way to describe a variety of bands that sound nothing alike.

EDIT: I better get an entry all for myself.

__________________
last.fm

boo boo

This right there is a huge contradiction.

How does Marillion not live up to the spirit of prog? They don't push boundries? Then you can't turn around and say Radiohead are not prog.

You seem to think it's technically impossible for anything post 70s to be prog, and that's the kinda elitist thing I was talking about. Either a modern prog band means someone who conforms to the format of 70s progressive rock or someone who doesn't conform but pushes boundries in very much the same way. So with that in mind, Marillion or Radiohead, one of them is prog.

They ARE a prog band in the sense that they follow the format of 70s prog, and even though I don't like them, they still expand on it in a way, they give it a more 80s sensibility.

Seriously. If a band sounds like they're a part of that genre, they're a part of that genre. That's how I classify genres, not from idealogies or countercultures or anything like that. I don't care if it's not the prog idealogy, it's the prog sound. Therefore they are a prog band.

Prog was defined by an idealogy, yes, but now it's defined by the sound it created, and prog bands as we know them today are those that follow or expand on that sound. This is why I consider Marillion prog and Radiohead not to be even though they come a lot closer to being a prog band in their ideology.

You're kinda sounding like a punk fan right now, those that think a band's "punkness" is defined by their idealogies rather than their sound, and yes I'm getting to that one very shortly.

This I agree with.

Then you're only saying Radiohead are not prog out of biased hate for them. Because if prog is defined by idealogy alone (it's not) then Radiohead qualify without a doubt.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Comus

How the hell do radiohead push boundaries?

You could almost, almost argue that they do for generic alt rock. But nothing else. Nirvana pushed more boundaries than radiohead.

Also on a large point. People also seem to confuse things that aren't mainstream for prog.

__________________
last.fm

boo boo

This argument is officially over.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Comus

Because I'm right?

Come on, you'll call anything prog, if you're a big enough fan of it, main case being radiohead. From now on I'm going to run around calling Billy Joel prog, and call anyone that dissagrees with me an idiot.

__________________
last.fm

CAPTAIN CAVEMAN

boo boo you forgot to mention a certain variety of prog fan you should be familiar with: the ones that are exactly the same as all the other prog fanboys but think they're above them because they like radiohead

boo boo

Heh, funny.

It's not just Radiohead. It's a lot of things. Some of them are the reasons Comus stated.

People who can't credit any post 70s band for anything and people who think the standards of a good modern prog band is sounding exactly like Genesis.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs