Just curious to see what Obner thinks as a whole.

Progressive rock is neither progressive nor rock. Discuss.

damn it I want to vote more than once..high five tanner

I'm trying to put the music discussion back in Obner.

I like songs. Prog is the doorway to hippie jam bands

or something like that.

yeah

Like some, hate some.

prog = magnum wankum opus (plural is... opi?) not song

so many kinds of bands are placed into this category.

i know i am looking forwad to seeing Green Milk from the PLanet Orange at CMJ.

www.green-milk.com

where do you guys draw the line?

Is early Floyd "prog"?
What about all that Kraut Rock that I'm sure the board worships?

Why does Can get a free pass to wank but Genesis does not?

Wow, feel the HATE.

As far as it being "neither progressive nor rock", that's sorta true, but not in all cases. For Genesis, definitely.

For the record, I like The Soft Machine, Henry Cow, Hawkwind (if I can ignore the lyrics), and stuff that may or may not really be considered prog like Amon Duul II. I don't really mind some King Crimson or Yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I really like them.

Can, much of the time, ROCKED. Genesis, never. Ever.

I would put them at completely opposite ends of the spectrum of what could be considered prog.

Can gets no pass

do i look bangladesh?

Nearly everything that has been identifited as "prog" I don't like. There's just way too much wankery and the songs are so long they get really tedious to me. I don't have the attention span for it.

Having said that, there is some music that has prog influence and parts that I like. But if I never hear Dream Theater or Porcupine Tree again, it'll be too soon.

Are you famiiar with the Genesis song "Return of the Giant Hogweed"?

It's almost a heavy metal song, for christ's sake.

How bout any of the album "Foxtrot"?

oh I don't think you'll find that true prog haters give most kraut rock a free pass even it doesn't inspire the same visceral hate.

I've heard very little Kraut rock for this very reason. I knew I hated prog, so didn't see a reason to find another genre to hate and I've stayed clear of it.

A lot of people I know who worship Can and routinely put their albums in the seminal category mock me for liking bands like Yes and Genesis.

[quote="Spade Kitty"]where do you guys draw the line?

Is early Floyd "prog"?
quote]

I have mixed feelings about Floyd to be honest. I actually loved them when I was 15 but I haven't put on a record of theirs in 10 years. But the Floyd I liked even then were the songs that were the least proggy.

I've listened to bits of Foxtrot, and none of what I heard "rocked". I'm not gonna get all in-depth in their catalog to try and prove myself wrong so I'll just go ahead and admit that I may be generalizing based on fairly limited knowledge.

Still, these are two bands with very different aims who I believe were drawing on some widely different influences. I think a lot people who like stuff like Funkadlic and Sly & the Family Stone are often also into Can. Their music is more rhythmic and generally is propelled by more of a groove structure than bands like King Crimson, Genesis, and Yes that seemed to be aiming for pseudo-classical composition and complexity. Can was simple and direct while much of prog tried to be very cerebral.

Really, I shouldn't have to explain this to anybody with ears.

Well that's pretty a dismissive way of putting it.

The major influences of the first two Yes albums were Crosby Stills and Nash, the Beatles, and jazz artists, before they got Steve Howe from Tomorrow and went more into the arena you're talking about. Even after Howe and Wakeman joined, songs like "Heart of the Sunrise", "South Side of the Sky" and "Roundabout" from Fragile rock a hell of a lot more than most Can songs. Sorry, but they do. Same for most of the material on "Close to the Edge". Actually, same for "Relayer". Yes rocked a lot harder than they get credit for, mostly because of their 1972-3 excesses. A lot of it was written out, but don't tell me that Yes didn't rock because they were a very loud band despite their effeminate frontman.

King Crimson was pretty cerebral, but their early proto-ELP albums aren't anything like what they became in their mid 70s period. By the time 1974 rolled around, their live set (as evidenced by the live boxed set The Great Deceiver) was half-based on groove-improvisation, especially with that rhythm section of Wetton and Bruford. It was more angular improv, but it was along the same lines as Can. They did at least 20-30 minutes of completely free improv every night!

Genesis is perhaps the most classically-influence of those bands, but to say they didn't "rock" is not really fair. They had their moments, even if they did become sort of wispy and pop-oriented after Gabriel left.

like any genre, some works for me and some does not. i love genesis stuff, most of older yes, some rush, king crimson, marillion, can... i don't care much for floyd.



progressive rock is rock and was progressive at the time. "progressive" meaning adding classical and extended song structures to the typical rock structure to create something new. and of course, prog rock uses rock instruments. seems like a statement borne to cause a stir than on developed noodle.



Well said! Depending on your flavor, you can choose one of the oldies for pure chewing satisfaction or find a newfangled progrock flavor from mars volta's metal-flavored take to the decemberists to tastes of prog rock qualities in sufjan and tvotr. Most can't choose just one!

Reaching back hundreds of years for music cues isn't progressive, it's regressive. Prog was made by bozos who lacked the soul and imagination to understand rock, and thought they could make rock more respectable by hewing closer to an established yardstick of musical excellence. In effect, they were just trying to impress their band class teachers.