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
Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical? Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?
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, 05:38 PM   #1 (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   #2 (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   #3 (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   #4 (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   #5 (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
Old 10-29-2011, 06:22 PM   #6 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIRIUSB View Post
What about other mainstream PR bands like Yes and Brand X?
"Yes" would've been my next pick, how about Kansas? (Art Rock)

I actually never personally liked to label Genesis as being progressive (whatever). Pink Floyd and Boston are defiantly two of the core prog bands.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 06:27 PM   #7 (permalink)
Luciferian
 
SIRIUSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
"Yes" would've been my next pick, how about Kansas? (Art Rock)

I actually never personally liked to label Genesis as being progressive (whatever). Pink Floyd is defiantly one of the core prog bands.
Floyd has so many eras they're hard to nail, love them though.
Kansas and bands like that to me came across as fluffy, but that's me.
You might actually dig some of my stuff (not exactly Prog Rock but very progressive).

Where does PR turn into Jazz Fusion? (I hate these labels but whatever)
SIRIUSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Similar Threads


Terms & Privacy - Contact Us - Music Banter - Archive - Top

© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.