Should there be a prog forum on musicbanter? (Read First!)

[Kashmir86]

Some people consider the who progressive, I dont. What do you think is who progressive? Wont get fooled again is but theres not that many others by them that have prog. qualities to them, most are pretty straight forward rock like my generation.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Kashmir86

Some people consider the who progressive, I dont. What do you think is who progressive? Wont get fooled again is but theres not that many others by them that have prog. qualities to them, most are pretty straight forward rock like my generation.

It is possible for non prog bands to make a progressive album, i certainly dont consider The Who prog, however, in my opinion, Tommy qualifys as prog, its one of the first true concept albums ever made, and im sure that bands like Yes, Pink Floyd and VDGG learned a thing or two from that album when they decided to make their own concept album...Then there are many other examples of progessive albums from non prog artists, pretty much every song on Zeppelins Houses Of The Holy is in a odd time scale and the album itself is very un-zeppelin like, though not very successful The Soft Parade was the sound of The Doors taking a bold new direction and every hendrix album has a progressive song or two (third stone from the sun, if 6 was 9, 1983... a merman i should turn to be, etc) and The Beatles Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and White Album all had major influence on the genre...Even The Smashing Pumpkins payed a little homage to prog with their double LP Mellon Collie...So yes, it is possible to make progressive music and still not be prog, just like how The Who and The Doors can make music that is punk rock even though they are not punk rock bands themselves, what seperates bands like The Who, Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin from bands like Pink Floyd, King Crimson and Yes is that the former bands made some prog, but were still mainstream artists in general and stuck to standard rock n roll more than anything, while the latter artists were more devoted to making progressive music throughout their carreer...To be considered a true prog artist, you cant just make a progressive song or two and then move on to something more mainstream, you have to devote yourself to being progressive all the time.

[JohnnyK]

If this forum were to succeed and be made, would this be an area for prog rock and prog metal, or just rock?

Btw, nice post Boo Boo, that basically cleared things up for some of the borderline prog bands.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by JohnnyK

If this forum were to succeed and be made, would this be an area for prog rock and prog metal, or just rock?

Btw, nice post Boo Boo, that basically cleared things up for some of the borderline prog bands.

Uh........ Prog, prog rock, prog metal, or just plain old prog without the rock or the metal (think Mike Oldfield)... Simply, anything prog and any sub-genre to prog, i will teach ye about the sub-genres of prog once i finish my prog history thread. (=

[Kashmir86]

Originally Posted by boo boo

It is possible for non prog bands to make a progressive album, i certainly dont consider The Who prog, however, in my opinion, Tommy qualifys as prog, its one of the first true concept albums ever made, and im sure that bands like Yes, Pink Floyd and VDGG learned a thing or two from that album when they decided to make their own concept album...Then there are many other examples of progessive albums from non prog artists, pretty much every song on Zeppelins Houses Of The Holy is in a odd time scale and the album itself is very un-zeppelin like, though not very successful The Soft Parade was the sound of The Doors taking a bold new direction and every hendrix album has a progressive song or two (third stone from the sun, if 6 was 9, 1983... a merman i should turn to be, etc) and The Beatles Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and White Album all had major influence on the genre...Even The Smashing Pumpkins payed a little homage to prog with their double LP Mellon Collie...So yes, it is possible to make progressive music and still not be prog, just like how The Who and The Doors can make music that is punk rock even though they are not punk rock bands themselves, what seperates bands like The Who, Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin from bands like Pink Floyd, King Crimson and Yes is that the former bands made some prog, but were still mainstream artists in general and stuck to standard rock n roll more than anything, while the latter artists were more devoted to making progressive music throughout their carreer...To be considered a true prog artist, you cant just make a progressive song or two and then move on to something more mainstream, you have to devote yourself to being progressive all the time.

That makes since. I also consider physical graffiti to be even more prog. than HOTH becuase of tracks like in my time of dying, kashmir, ten years gone, and In the Light. Though no quarter, song remains the same and the rain song are progressive to an extent, I think all in all PG was more progressive. Houses of the holy was when they really started to experiment with different sounds alot, which is why I like it so much, and why I I'm such a zephead, is because of their diversity, I never get tired of listening to them as I do so many other bands. That was a well done post though, that makes it clear on those borderline prog. bands. Now can we please start a CR/Prog. forum, or are we forced to just keep talkin about it?

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

There is no need to bump 2 year old threads !!!!!