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

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Prog & Psychedelic Rock
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2011, 03:04 AM   #1 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
Phantom of the Opera, if it was performed solely by one band, and not sung by several singers backed by an orchestra and attached to a musical, would be "prog"

prog takes a lot from classical, neways
Depending on the band, I generally agree with you. If it's two recorders and a violin to someone singing, then I don't agree. If it's played by someone approaching something more like a rock band, then it could be prog.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 02:08 PM   #2 (permalink)
Luciferian
 
SIRIUSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
The Phantom of the Opera Musical has recurring themes. Is that prog rock? What about classical music? Is that prog rock?
Interesting point, classical music eventually evolved to non systematic composition and like Mozart and Beethoven (to name the obvious) the music became progressive in the fact that it didn't rely on recurring themes or a compositional organizational structure. Earlier Crimson and middle Tull also have this non-structure as well. The need to have a 'song' on an album was too great it seems, and as with any species the need to survive took precedent.
SIRIUSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:18 PM   #3 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
Default

I like Jethro Tull, but would find them a piss poor example of 'Prog Rock'. There were some medieval under tones, and some strong themeology. Even albums with prolonged song structures. Generally, however, they're really sort of classic rock with a few medieval undertones. They stayed very strictly in 'safe territory' their career.

When I think of something that's effectively prog I think of something like 'Samla Mammas Manna'. Very dense, creative, compositions. Unique aesthetic. Brilliantly virtuoso. Yet, to the point of alienating any mainstream appeal. Prog can be good prog, and mainstream. Yet, I think it should still have some tendencies to introduce to people a sound which redefines the possibilities of rock.

Tull is brilliant, extremely well written rock, but doesn't really do that for me.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra View Post
I like Jethro Tull, but would find them a piss poor example of 'Prog Rock'.
Tull is brilliant, extremely well written rock, but doesn't really do that for me.
I agree with Tull being a bad example for progressive. Rush is the ultimate and perfect example of progressive rock in my opinion.

I never was a fan of Jethro Tull either, but its cool if others are.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 02:27 AM   #5 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,126
Default

I heard that ELP recruited mitch mitchell as the drummer, and he showed up to jam with body guards and an arsenal of weaapons haha. I also heard that it was planned for Hendrix to join the group and they would be called HELP, but he died before it could happen
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:38 PM   #6 (permalink)
Luciferian
 
SIRIUSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Default

LOL . . . hysterical
crapBut hey to each their own!

Try
this on for progressive size . . .
SIRIUSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:44 PM   #7 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
Default

In all fairness, Samla very much intends the humor in their approach. I find that refreshing. Plus, from a technical level, they're far superior to Jethro Tull. Just because the intended humor is lost on you, doesn't mean you need to overlook their virtuosity.

Now, I LIKE Jethro Tull a lot. But don't honestly feel they're that progressive. In fact, I'd say they're quite conservative. I mean, take out the orchestration on albums, and the flute playing, and it's just straight arena rock.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:47 PM   #8 (permalink)
Luciferian
 
SIRIUSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra View Post
In all fairness, Samla very much intends the humor in their approach. I find that refreshing. Plus, from a technical level, they're far superior to Jethro Tull. Just because the intended humor is lost on you, doesn't mean you need to overlook their virtuosity.

Now, I LIKE Jethro Tull a lot. But don't honestly feel they're that progressive. In fact, I'd say they're quite conservative. I mean, take out the orchestration on albums, and the flute playing, and it's just straight arena rock.
Post a good example, because I can't find one.
SIRIUSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 06:01 PM   #9 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIRIUSB View Post
Post a good example, because I can't find one.


I would say this song very much is a good example of promoting the compositional intricacy, and care that most mainstream rock is lacking. It's melodic, percussively interesting. Has moments of damn good coordination between instruments. A very unique aesthetic in terms of usage of carnival/cartoon tones(not many things in the 1970s were doing). Gradual progression. Unique structural elements. Nearly every instrument played masterfully. Apart from the vocals, gorgeously harmonic. Yet, even in the harmonic moments, no fear in experimenting in polyphonic, and light avant-garde elements. Plus, distinctly rock in tone(even if the jazz elements are very strong).

Just because it isn't 'serious' I don't think the craftsmanship in terms of musicianship really need to be discredited.

Where as Jethro Tull is significantly more simple rhythmically. Significantly less subtle thematically. More needlessly repetitive. Too focused on that catchy hook which makes rock accessible. Great band, worse example of 'progressing' from rock norms.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 06:12 PM   #10 (permalink)
Luciferian
 
SIRIUSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra View Post


I would say this song very much is a good example of promoting the compositional intricacy, and care that most mainstream rock is lacking. It's melodic, percussively interesting. Has moments of damn good coordination between instruments. A very unique aesthetic in terms of usage of carnival/cartoon tones(not many things in the 1970s were doing). Gradual progression. Unique structural elements. Nearly every instrument played masterfully. Apart from the vocals, gorgeously harmonic. Yet, even in the harmonic moments, no fear in experimenting in polyphonic, and light avant-garde elements. Plus, distinctly rock in tone(even if the jazz elements are very strong).

Just because it isn't 'serious' I don't think the craftsmanship in terms of musicianship really need to be discredited.

Where as Jethro Tull is significantly more simple rhythmically. Significantly less subtle thematically. More needlessly repetitive. Too focused on that catchy hook which makes rock accessible. Great band, worse example of 'progressing' from rock norms.
Cool stuff . . . reminds me of Vander Graaf Generator and other English PR bands! I guess I just have a warm spot for Tull, but they use odd time sigs expertly, are perfectionists and excellent musicians, incorporate classic themes brilliantly, and have a the finest lyrics ever.

What about other mainstream PR bands like Yes and Brand X?
SIRIUSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.