|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#31 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
![]() Quote:
Like with the case of "rock", there really aren't any stylistic elements that define or qualify something as "prog". Like grunge, it's more of a movement than a sound. You only get in by being associated with the fanbase. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 (permalink) | |||||
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-meta...on-thread.html Quote:
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. Last edited by boo boo; 01-20-2008 at 07:26 AM. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 (permalink) | |||||
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. A band only really fit within something if the classification can be generally/conventionally regarded as accurate. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 (permalink) | |||||||
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not claiming my criteria to be completely objective. But I worked pretty hard to make the prog ed neutral and reliable. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
![]() Quote:
To me, conventional usage and application is the most important thing in genre classification. EDIT: I thought your article was very good and highly informative, btw. Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 01-20-2008 at 11:59 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 (permalink) | |
Fish in the percolator!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hobbit Land NZ
Posts: 2,870
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 (permalink) | ||
I'm sorry, is this Can?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,989
|
![]()
For my two cents, The Mars Volta today are leading the forefront for progressive rock as it has come to be known, however progressive music can be found in many different forms. Opeth are enjoying relative success right now, and black metal, itself a progression is getting more popular by the day.
Radiohead are in no way progressive as they are contributing nothing new to music. I've never heard a band like The Mars Volta, and I don't think I'll ever hear another one like it, that in my book definitely earns them the badge progressive. Also before I get flamed for despising Radiohead because I'm an alt rock fan, I basically listen to the big 70's rock and prog bands and some very obscure **** from the heydays of prog as well as the odd black metal and such. And I quite dislike alternative rock as a whole. Anyways on to the point: Progressive rock DOES have a chance to re-emerge back into the mainstream but it will take time, and it won't happen overnight, it's not a genre that's run its course and it's not a genre without appeal to a mainstream audience.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|