Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?

King_Matt · 10-25-2011, 07:34 PM

No. But I often see people's confusion about this in metal, especially death metal. People call Death, Cynic, and Atheist progressive death metal when in reality they're just technical. The only Death album that has slight progressive influences is The Sound Of Perseverance. But even then, it's not progressive.

blastingas10 · 10-25-2011, 08:25 PM

Im waiting for someone to look into my comment about The Allman Brothers, someone who knows their music.

Necromancer · 10-25-2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Im waiting for someone to look into my comment about The Allman Brothers, someone who knows their music.

I seen your comment a couple of times, and the only conclusion is that Allman Brothers more than likely did play prog music with certain songs they wrote (when) writing albums, as so is the same for most all other rock bands as well.

Greg Allman is the Brother Ive personally always liked in the Allman Brothers "Mid Night Rider", "I'm No Angel". Theres a couple more solo songs I like of Greg Allman in the 80s. Just cant think of them at the moment.

SATCHMO · 10-25-2011, 11:11 PM

Well, think about the term progressive itself. It's used to denote a way of actively thinking outside of established parameters and formulas. in music, as well as in other facets of art and culture, we recognize a style or genre when we see certain recurrent themes creating a criteria for its designation. As it usually happens, someone progressively sets the bar and others follow adhering to the formula that's been established.

The case of progressive rock seems to bee that there are innovators and there are duplicators within the genre, but as a whole, the genre of progressive rock tends to be a platform for greater musical creativity, because it highlights intellectual and artistic concept, innovation and musicianship over following a formula, which is very simple to follow and be prolific with.

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 04:55 AM

Well the Allman Brothers were certainly one of the most technical blues based bands. I think theyre pretty underrated, mostly to the youth of today. Every kid knows led zeppelin, but not many know of the allman brothers. And the allman brothers were better in my opinion.

King_Matt · 10-26-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Well the Allman Brothers were certainly one of the most technical blues based bands. I think theyre pretty underrated, mostly to the youth of today. Every kid knows led zeppelin, but not many know of the allman brothers. And the allman brothers were better in my opinion.

Unfortunately I beg to differ...

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 03:44 PM

theres no doubt that zeppelin is more known to kids today. The Allman Brothers were more technical in their approach to writing music. sure, Jimmy Page would bust out some fast solos, but that doesnt make them more technical. The Allmans used more complex time signatures. They incorporated Jazz and Classical influences in their music. Zeppelin was more pop, especially with songs like whole lotta love and dazed and confused. Not to mention they plagiarized those songs, but thats another story.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 10-26-2011, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

theres no doubt that zeppelin is more known to kids today. The Allman Brothers were more technical in their approach to writing music. sure, Jimmy Page would bust out some fast solos, but that doesnt make them more technical. The Allmans used more complex time signatures. They incorporated Jazz and Classical influences in their music. Zeppelin was more pop, especially with songs like whole lotta love and dazed and confused. Not to mention they plagiarized those songs, but thats another story.

With that said, one could argue that Zeppelin was more 'progressive' even if blatant song thieves. Allmans might be more technical but would be more dry, and blatant in their output. Zeppelin experimented in a myriad of unconventional instruments in recording, extended technique, etc.

Songs like Kashmir, No Quarter, etc. prove that the band was much more about studio depth, and songwriting, than actual chord technique. Zep were exceptionally proficient in studio, along with technical, which really set them apart from most mainstream bands from the 1970s, even good ones, that play very complex music by today's standards, but sound much older. I imagine for their time, Zeppelin sounded fairly future looking.

Which brings us to the original point, it's kind of unfair how prog is blandly stereotyped as anything that's complex.

Guybrush · 10-26-2011, 04:55 PM

Personally, and I know that I may contradict popular opinion, I feel progressive rock should be largely composed and played by a rock band or at least contain some rock instrumentation. I would be hesitant to call a band who only improvised on wind instruments rock anything. I do realize there are times when such bands can play in a way which still makes them sort of rock-y (Apocalyptica comes to mind), but when they don't, I am particularly hesitant to call it prog rock. On that note, I personally am a bit hesitant to call Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom (mentioned in my previous post) prog rock. It's certainly avantgarde and progressive in a sense, but where's the rock?

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 10-26-2011, 05:17 PM

Right, but one could argue that many prog bands are 50% or more Jazz, or classical than rock. I mean, what makes them particularly rock, anyway?

10-26-2011, 04:55 AM	#15 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Well the Allman Brothers were certainly one of the most technical blues based bands. I think theyre pretty underrated, mostly to the youth of today. Every kid knows led zeppelin, but not many know of the allman brothers. And the allman brothers were better in my opinion. Last edited by blastingas10; 10-26-2011 at 05:03 AM.

10-26-2011, 03:44 PM	#17 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	theres no doubt that zeppelin is more known to kids today. The Allman Brothers were more technical in their approach to writing music. sure, Jimmy Page would bust out some fast solos, but that doesnt make them more technical. The Allmans used more complex time signatures. They incorporated Jazz and Classical influences in their music. Zeppelin was more pop, especially with songs like whole lotta love and dazed and confused. Not to mention they plagiarized those songs, but thats another story. Last edited by blastingas10; 10-26-2011 at 03:55 PM.

10-26-2011, 04:55 PM	#19 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Personally, and I know that I may contradict popular opinion, I feel progressive rock should be largely composed and played by a rock band or at least contain some rock instrumentation. I would be hesitant to call a band who only improvised on wind instruments rock anything. I do realize there are times when such bands can play in a way which still makes them sort of rock-y (Apocalyptica comes to mind), but when they don't, I am particularly hesitant to call it prog rock. On that note, I personally am a bit hesitant to call Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom (mentioned in my previous post) prog rock. It's certainly avantgarde and progressive in a sense, but where's the rock? __________________ Something Completely Different

10-25-2011, 07:34 PM	#11 (permalink)
King_Matt Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 75	No. But I often see people's confusion about this in metal, especially death metal. People call Death, Cynic, and Atheist progressive death metal when in reality they're just technical. The only Death album that has slight progressive influences is The Sound Of Perseverance. But even then, it's not progressive.

10-25-2011, 08:25 PM	#12 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Im waiting for someone to look into my comment about The Allman Brothers, someone who knows their music.

10-25-2011, 11:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
SATCHMO Al Dente Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,708	Well, think about the term progressive itself. It's used to denote a way of actively thinking outside of established parameters and formulas. in music, as well as in other facets of art and culture, we recognize a style or genre when we see certain recurrent themes creating a criteria for its designation. As it usually happens, someone progressively sets the bar and others follow adhering to the formula that's been established. The case of progressive rock seems to bee that there are innovators and there are duplicators within the genre, but as a whole, the genre of progressive rock tends to be a platform for greater musical creativity, because it highlights intellectual and artistic concept, innovation and musicianship over following a formula, which is very simple to follow and be prolific with.

10-26-2011, 05:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra \/ GOD Join Date: May 2010 Location: Nowhere... Posts: 2,179	Right, but one could argue that many prog bands are 50% or more Jazz, or classical than rock. I mean, what makes them particularly rock, anyway?