Underworld rejected from ProgArchives [Archive]

View Full Version : Underworld rejected from ProgArchives

bryantm3

10-24-2006, 03:40 PM

Because "progressive they are but progressive rock they are not."

Gee, that makes a whole lot of sense, especially since Brian Eno and Tangerine Dream both hold spots on that website. :mad: :confused:

dirty050505

10-24-2006, 04:03 PM

Fuck 'em, who cares about genres anyway, they're just pigeonholes. UW's sound is way too diverse for such 'labels'.

bryantm3

10-24-2006, 05:40 PM

yeah, exactly. i told them it was their loss, which it is. the thing is, underworld is so progressive, that the prog fans don't even want to admit that bands like marillion & spock's beard are just rehashing real progressive music that came out in the 70s, and the real progressive bands now are like underworld. that is the meaning of progressive music: treading new ground in music. The Beatles did it in the 60s, Bands like Yes & Brand X did it in the 70s, and bands like Underworld & Orbital are doing it now. These bands are the Beetovens and Brahms of our times- no one will remember some of the most popular bands of our times in 100 years- they'll remember the musicians who truly stretched the boundaries of music as we know it, and caused us to think.

dubman

10-24-2006, 07:23 PM

i never understood how underworld were actually prog. maybe at he very beginning, but those days seem to be behind them, and i really dont get the prog feel from them these days.

then again, i never really understood what that term carried, except that about every band that carried that genre to their name except for underworld just about instantly annoyed me. prog house is patchy, prog rock is painful, prog anything just seems to focus on "brilliant" layering rather than something with teeth or funk or anything that doesnt stink of over-deliberated wankery.

which is why i'm a little suspect whether they're prog or not.

and i know there's scarcely a point in saying this, but in contrast to bryants opinion (yes are not beethoven, and i dont know what you mean by stretching boundaries or "making us think." think what??), i think the world of music and everything relevant in it left underworld behind since after STITI days. i still think they're brilliant, and i love what they're doing now, but as far as being relevant to anyone but us fans, it's not happening. everyone who cares to know knows what they do, and they havent really surprised anyone since then, i dont think... maybe with beaucoup fish, but not really.

so yeah, they may be doing some things that are new, and we may love (or not) how what is incredibly familiar to us is getting changed up and thrown through their constantly evolving process, but it is their unique process, and everyone else who has wanted to has seriously moved on.

TheRev

10-24-2006, 07:56 PM

The Beatles did it in the 60s, Bands like Yes & Brand X did it in the 70s, and bands like Underworld & Orbital did it in the 90s.

More accurate like that methinks.....

Because Orbital is no longer. Finito, done, and there last few albums were just rehashings of the same formulas from the brown album. Doesn't mean they weren't brilliant pieces of music, but groundbreaking...not so much.

Same story with Underworld, which was covered by someone else's posts.

I'm still waiting to hear who in the 00's are the groundbreakers...certainly hasn't been in the electronic realm.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

10-24-2006, 08:52 PM

Honestly I just don't think that Underworld belongs on that list. Now I realize that the list does get stretched a lot...for example I don't know why the YMO are on it...but "progressive electronic" isn't really a genre is it? And if it is, would Underworld even be in it? I see a lot of the Warp artists (Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, even Venetian Snares as awful as he can be) as being more progressive than Underworld, who I'd classify as simply electronic or house music. Even Orbital is more progressive (especially during the Snivilisation/In Sides period, including that 20+ minute version of "The Box") really. I don't think just because it's "music that makes you think" means it should be labeled as such. A band like They Might Be Giants, XTC, or Talking Heads does make me think and do tread (somewhat) new grounds in music, but you'd get laughed off the internet calling them progressive.

smack416

10-24-2006, 08:56 PM

smack416

10-25-2006, 07:56 AM

Yeah. I also forgot about emo bands. Then again, shouldn't we all.

stimpee

10-25-2006, 11:01 AM

Underworld rejected from ProgArchivesand rightly so. Your prog argument was trashed a few months ago. Underworld were clearly more krautrock than prog. For dirties who missed this do a search to read the thread.

BeautifulBurnout

10-25-2006, 12:19 PM

"Trashed" is a big word. The argument was put. Not everyone accepted it. :p ;)

holden

10-25-2006, 12:28 PM

But I don't believe that "progressive" has ever meant new as it relates to music. ie, "the term "progressive" typically refers to the structure of a track which occur incrementally."

Oh, but it did! Problem is, there are at least two "progressive" prefixes- that which is usually applied to the genre (the prog-rock label), as indicative of experimental music or that which carries sophistication and style not usually found in mainstream rock, and then there is the "progressive" you're describing, smack416, for "progressive trance", "progressive house", etc, that's specific to a song structure.

I'd propose we forget the labels and connotations of the word Prog. That gets us into arguments about genres and comparisons to other bands.

Question is simple: did Underworld's music make an impact on the musical landscape? Were they a step ahead of the rest? I'd argue that the certainly were in the Dubno/STITI era and are making moves in this experimental direction again. If you aren't standing still, you are progressing. Simple as that;)

bryantm3

10-25-2006, 01:37 PM

Funny. I wouldn't have equated the two, but a lot of this does seem to relate to Underworld, though I'm finding their last few years of material a little less complex than what is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock

As someone who has listened to far too much Yes and Rush, the only popular progressive act I can think of right now is Tool. Unless we want to include James Holden in the mix. :-P

Then there's the whole "post-rock" thing. I suppose Godspeed You! Black Emporer and Thee Silver Mt Zion Memorial Orchestra and Tra-la-la Band & Choir would also qualify as progressive, etc.

But I don't believe that "progressive" has ever meant new as it relates to music. ie, "the term "progressive" typically refers to the structure of a track which occur incrementally."

Anyway, as for ProgArchives, are they daft? What is the purpose of their "Progressive Electronic" section?

yeah, my post in their forums pretty much laid it out for them:

Well, it is techno, but it's also progressive, similar to Progressive Jazz (ie: Brand X). You can't say that Brand X is rock, but you can say it's prog. In a similar way, you can't really say Underworld is rock, but you can say it's prog.

I would say that they meet the requirements for prog:

1. Long compositions, sometimes running over 20 minutes, with intricate melodies and harmonies that require repeated listening to grasp. These are often described as epics and are the genre's clearest nod to classical music. An early example is the 23-minute "Echoes" by Pink Floyd. Other famous examples include Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick" (43 minutes), Yes' "Close to the Edge" (18 minutes) and Genesis' "Supper's Ready" (23 minutes). More recent extreme examples are the 60-minute "Light of Day, Day of Darkness" by Green Carnation and "Garden of Dreams" by The Flower Kings.
check

2. Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives, covering such themes as science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and madness. Many early 1970s progressive rock bands (especially German ones) featured lyrics concerned with left-wing politics and social issues. no check

3. Concept albums, in which a theme or storyline is explored throughout an entire album in a manner similar to a film or a play. In the days of vinyl, these were usually two-record sets with strikingly designed gatefold sleeves. Famous examples include The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway by Genesis, Tales from Topographic Oceans by Yes, 2112 by Rush, Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall by Pink Floyd, and the more recent Metropolis Part II: Scenes from a Memory by Dream Theater and Snow by Spock's Beard. Aqualung, perhaps the best-known record by Jethro Tull, is often regarded as a concept album due to its recurring themes, but songwriter Ian Anderson has always claimed that the album is just "a bunch of songs".
check

4. Unusual vocal styles and use of multi-part vocal harmonies. See Magma, Robert Wyatt, and Gentle Giant. check

5. Prominent use of electronic instrumentation — particularly keyboard instruments such as the organ, piano, Mellotron, and Moog synthesizer, in addition to the usual rock combination of electric guitar, bass and drums.
check

6. Use of unusual time signatures, scales, or tunings. Many pieces use multiple time signatures and/or tempi, sometimes concurrently. Solo passages for virtually every instrument, designed to showcase the virtuosity of the player. This is the sort of thing that contributed to the fame of such performers as keyboardist Rick Wakeman and drummer Neil Peart.
check- there are keyboard/guitar/electronic choir solos (don't believe it's mellotron but not sure)

7. Inclusion of classical pieces on albums. For example, Yes start their concerts with a taped extract of Stravinsky's Firebird suite, and Emerson Lake and Palmer have performed arrangements of pieces by Copland, Bartók, Moussorgsky, Prokofiev, Janacek, Alberto Ginastera, and often feature quotes from J. S. Bach in lead breaks. Jethro Tull recorded a famous cover of J. S. Bach's "Bouree", in which they turned the classical piece into a "sleazy jazzy night-club song", according to Ian Anderson. Marillion started concerts with Rossini's La Gazza Ladra (The Thieving Magpie). Symphony X has included parts by, or inspired by, Beethoven, Holst and Mozart.
no check

8. An aesthetic linking the music with visual art, a trend started by The Beatles with Sgt. Pepper's and enthusiastically embraced during the prog heyday. Some bands became as well-known for the art direction of their albums as for their sound, with the "look" integrated into the band's overall musical identity. This led to fame for particular artists and design studios, most notably Roger Dean, whose paintings and logo design for Yes are so essential to the band's identity they could be said to serve the same function as corporate branding. Hipgnosis became equally famous for their unusual sleeves for Pink Floyd, often featuring experimental photography quite innovative for the time (two men shaking hands, one of whom is in flames, on the cover of Wish You Were Here). H.R. Giger's painting for Emerson Lake and Palmer's Brain Salad Surgery is one of the most famous album sleeves ever produced.
check- they intricately design their album covers to match the albums with a design collective called tomato, of which they are prominent members

9. A piece that is subdivided into movements in the manner of a classical suite. Examples are the four-part "Close to the Edge" by Yes, six-part "Hemispheres" by Rush, and the seven-part "A Change of Seasons" by Dream Theater. All of TransAtlantic's epics are multipart. check- juanita - kiteless - to dream of love

10. A piece that is composed of a patchwork of musical themes that could conceivably stand as individual songs, but together serve to relate a complete narrative through music. Examples are "Supper's Ready" on Genesis' Foxtrot (the "Willow Farm" section of which was played as a single), "A Day in the Life" on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by The Beatles, Jethro Tull's Aqualung from the album of the same name, and "The Gates of Delirium" on Yes's album Relayer (from which the single "Soon" was taken).
check- the second half of 'mmm skyscraper i love you' could stand as a song on its own

11. A piece that allows the development of musical ideas via progressions or variations in the manner of a bolero or a canon. "King Kong" on Frank Zappa's Uncle Meat is an example.
not sure what this means, unless it means that they make music that doesn't sound like anything made before them, which they do. i won't count this one.

that's 8/10 requirements met (9/11 if you count the last one), and some bands on this site meet less of those. frankly, i'm not sure how you could argue that it's not prog. that's y'all's definition, by the way.

by the way, 2 and 3 are disputable.

bryantm3

10-25-2006, 01:38 PM

and rightly so. Your prog argument was trashed a few months ago. Underworld were clearly more krautrock than prog. For dirties who missed this do a search to read the thread.
http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=17

bryantm3

10-25-2006, 01:44 PM

I got an email back:

"As I explained in the thread, the decision to reject Underworld was taken by the genre team. As a rule, they don't include modern electronic "trance" bands (sorry if this isn't the correct term, I'm not well up on the subject) such as Underworld. I must say I would tend to agree with them as I find the samples fairly repetitive aside from the Banstyle one. Perhaps you didn't submit the best examples?
You're welcome to resubmit the band in the future as genre teams and other things change on PA over time."

I probably didn't submit the best examples, or their most progressive stuff.
-Cherry Pie
-Juanita
-Banstyle
-Little Speaker
-Cups

i prolly should've done

-mmm skyscraper i love you
-spikee
-pizza for eggs
-banstyle
-kittens

King of Snake

10-25-2006, 01:59 PM

Icke

10-25-2006, 02:25 PM

you probably shouldn't really care either way. Sorry if that sounds harsh but is it really worth your time and energy to try and convince some people who you will never meet that run some kind site that no one cares about?

"your ultimate prog rock resource" is what the site says. However prog they may or not be, they are obvioulsy not a rockband.
Depends on your definition of rock :p .

6. Use of unusual time signatures, scales, or tunings. Many pieces use multiple time signatures and/or tempi, sometimes concurrently. Solo passages for virtually every instrument, designed to showcase the virtuosity of the player. This is the sort of thing that contributed to the fame of such performers as keyboardist Rick Wakeman and drummer Neil Peart.
check- there are keyboard/guitar/electronic choir solos (don't believe it's mellotron but not sure)

I don't think that the solo's in UW songs are meant to demonstrate the vituosity of the player. It is the overall structure that should/could be considered a sign of virtuosity. Though Karl's guitar solos are an exception, because they are played live. Not to downplay electronic music or anything, but programming a piano loop for example, how beautiful it may be, is not something that I (and probably most other people) would consider a sign of virtuosity.

dubman

10-25-2006, 03:56 PM

GreenPea

10-25-2006, 04:36 PM

They have to draw the line somewhere. As an avid visitor of metal archives i know that the line of what is and what is not metal is quite arbitrary. I am not an expert in prog but I am sorry, if you include Underworld you might as well include every trance band in the prog archives. Very good decision to reject them imo. That email they sent you back is right on.

bryantm3

10-25-2006, 06:56 PM

yeah, and i'm not too hot on their kind of music sharing half a genre name with the mars volta.

eugh.

and as for the points, 3 is more than disputable, it's not even there.
6 is ridiculous, and 9 +10 are rarities.
well 3 is possible. there are themes that are repeated throughout dubnobasswithmyheadman and beaucoup fish (bassline from 'dark & long' is repeated, sounds of thunder, wind, etc. are prevalent throughout album, beaucoup fish lyrics can be interpreted to be a concept album about a relationship with a woman, and 'tiny holes' is repeated at least 3-4 times. surely must have some meaning?)

GreenPea

10-25-2006, 10:27 PM

Actually, I have to thank you for making me check the Prog Archives cause I just discovered that the soundtrack for Nosferatu (70s version) was made by Popol Vuh (a band that I've been meaning to check out for a while). And I remember while watching the movie thinking the music absolutely kicked major ass (it made me really emotional actually...) so just expanded my musical horizons a little bit :)

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 12:22 AM

i've been using progarchives to do that.

i'm glad you found that!

dubman

10-26-2006, 12:23 AM

well 3 is possible. there are themes that are repeated throughout dubnobasswithmyheadman and beaucoup fish (bassline from 'dark & long' is repeated, sounds of thunder, wind, etc. are prevalent throughout album, beaucoup fish lyrics can be interpreted to be a concept album about a relationship with a woman, and 'tiny holes' is repeated at least 3-4 times. surely must have some meaning?)

straws are for drinking, not grasping.

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 12:32 AM

it could be possible. we just don't know the meaning of the lyrics, but they seem to be connected. still, removing that one, that's still 7/10 requirements.

dubman

10-26-2006, 01:07 AM

it could be possible. we just don't know the meaning of the lyrics, but they seem to be connected. still, removing that one, that's still 7/10 requirements.

actually it's more like 4/10 until you contest my other objections.
and make that 3/10 since point 5 would very very obviously be valid within a rock context.

and anyways, you've got a list, and i've got ears.
not hearing it.

Ally

10-26-2006, 04:34 AM

... you will hear gospel, and rhythm and blues and jazz.. all those are just labels, we know that music is music!

patrick

10-26-2006, 04:48 AM

i am completely glad they aren't near this site/grouping. prog is awful, and my proof of that is 'dream theater'

HELL!

Dirty0900

10-26-2006, 06:46 AM

I dont care what genre they are/were etc. If it sounds good i'll listen.

End of.

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 08:35 AM

actually it's more like 4/10 until you contest my other objections.
and make that 3/10 since point 5 would very very obviously be valid within a rock context.

and anyways, you've got a list, and i've got ears.
not hearing it.

on no. 5: they use rock instrumentation in addition to techno sounds, so it's still valid, in a reverse manner.

on no 6: there are solo passages, like guitar solos and keyboard solos, in UW's music.

on no 9: there are plenty of examples of this. 'mmm skyscraper i love you', 'juanita : kiteless : to dream of love', 'cups', 'banstyle / sappys curry', 'pizza for eggs', 'i'm a little girl and i'm a big sister and i'm a princess and this is my horse'.

on no 10: there are short cuts of their long songs including juanita, and sections of several songs listed above could be taken out and put as stand alone.

7/10, if not 8/10.

dubman

10-26-2006, 10:13 AM

on no. 5: they use rock instrumentation in addition to techno sounds, so it's still valid, in a reverse manner.

on no 6: there are solo passages, like guitar solos and keyboard solos, in UW's music.

on no 9: there are plenty of examples of this. 'mmm skyscraper i love you', 'juanita : kiteless : to dream of love', 'cups', 'banstyle / sappys curry', 'pizza for eggs', 'i'm a little girl and i'm a big sister and i'm a princess and this is my horse'.

on no 10: there are short cuts of their long songs including juanita, and sections of several songs listed above could be taken out and put as stand alone.

7/10, if not 8/10.

on no. 9. yeah, i thought about it too... i count 4. out of their whole discography, i count 4... 3 actually since i dont think skyscraper works and i *dont* count riverrun since it's published that those are seperte tracks and they left it to us to cut up.

on no. 5. no they dont. just because you hear an occasional guitar twang somewhere does not make it rock instrumentation. it is used wholly within an electronic context and only for that purpose. there isnt much BS about sounding anything like a rock band

on no. 6. THOSE ARENT SOLOS. if you've heard a proper solo theres the very important aspect of "showing off a player's technical proficiency". i dont heaar it, and thank christ, because i hate that anyway, and the concept of thinking that's valid when you're looking at a ton of buttons and presets is even more ludicrous.
unless it's an improv...

on 10. but they arent. hmmm.

GreenPea

10-26-2006, 11:25 AM

on no. 9. yeah, i thought about it too... i count 4. out of their whole discography, i count 4... 3 actually since i dont think skyscraper works and i *dont* count riverrun since it's published that those are seperte tracks and they left it to us to cut up.

on no. 5. no they dont. just because you hear an occasional guitar twang somewhere does not make it rock instrumentation. it is used wholly within an electronic context and only for that purpose. there isnt much BS about sounding anything like a rock band

on no. 6. THOSE ARENT SOLOS. if you've heard a proper solo theres the very important aspect of "showing off a player's technical proficiency". i dont heaar it, and thank christ, because i hate that anyway, and the concept of thinking that's valid when you're looking at a ton of buttons and presets is even more ludicrous.
unless it's an improv...

on 10. but they arent. hmmm.
Besides all those points don't hold the same weight. For me what most says prog of all those points is the thing about playing in unusual tempos, that for me is kind of the definition of prog right there, it is making music with this academic and technical approach where the creativity is shown by playing with the rules of music that the general music listener has no clue about...And in that case isn't UW mostly 4/4 stuff? That to me is reason enough to reject them.

P.S. Mind you I might be wrong about what I just said cause I couldn't tell you what tempo music is being played on even if you threatened to kill my family.

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 11:30 AM

on no. 9. yeah, i thought about it too... i count 4. out of their whole discography, i count 4... 3 actually since i dont think skyscraper works and i *dont* count riverrun since it's published that those are seperte tracks and they left it to us to cut up.

on no. 5. no they dont. just because you hear an occasional guitar twang somewhere does not make it rock instrumentation. it is used wholly within an electronic context and only for that purpose. there isnt much BS about sounding anything like a rock band

on no. 6. THOSE ARENT SOLOS. if you've heard a proper solo theres the very important aspect of "showing off a player's technical proficiency". i dont heaar it, and thank christ, because i hate that anyway, and the concept of thinking that's valid when you're looking at a ton of buttons and presets is even more ludicrous.
unless it's an improv...

on 10. but they arent. hmmm.

i give up no 5.

6. listen to the first track on pizza for eggs

9. 'movement' pieces don't usually make up a ton of an artist's catalogue; there's usually one on every album (uw did this, except for AHDO)

10. i'm pretty sure there is a short cut for juanita.

holden

10-26-2006, 11:55 AM

(ahem)

Question is simple: did Underworld's music make an impact on the musical landscape? Were they a step ahead of the rest? If you aren't standing still, you are progressing. Simple as that;)
(and also...)
I dont care what genre they are/were etc. If it sounds good i'll listen.

End of.

i don't think arguing the ten criteria is going to get Underworld on Progarchives or even change minds here. Their music means different things to different people. For me, it's progressive. For the next guy, it's trance. It's probably a hundred more subgenres, too.

Leon

10-26-2006, 12:01 PM

I'm not going to post anything in this thread.

BrotherLovesDub

10-26-2006, 01:23 PM

fuck it then, i won't post either!

BeautifulBurnout

10-26-2006, 01:24 PM

I already did once, and I am not doing it again. So there.

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 02:32 PM

(ahem)

(and also...)

i don't think arguing the ten criteria is going to get Underworld on Progarchives or even change minds here. Their music means different things to different people. For me, it's progressive. For the next guy, it's trance. It's probably a hundred more subgenres, too.
i think you're right. for example, i could see how someone could say Genesis is folk rock, or Moby is punk, or Led Zeppelin is blues.

sanakan

10-26-2006, 02:32 PM

which edition of "let's have the same argument over again" is this?

stimpee

10-26-2006, 02:37 PM

which edition of "let's have the same argument over again" is this?Its this one (http://tinyurl.com/swmrj).

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 02:44 PM

the fact that we're even having this argument proves that underworld is considered prog by some people!

which actually proves nothing.

patrick

10-26-2006, 05:36 PM

by some people is you, and this arguement is hilarious, cause it's like argueing that say: lord of the rings is a kids movie cause it has little hobbits and things that have similarities. you are totally crossing genres, just cause underworlds music is progressive MUSIC doesn't mean it is including in the genre of progressive. just like they woulnd't be included in indie music even though they are on an independent label etc. etc. the term has taken on a new meaning and that meaning is "the type of progressive rock music that mostly causes people ears to bleed and white people to pretend they are doing guitar solos in their car or living room".

Anyhow, i agree with dubmans' points completely. just cause uw has done a few things like minor solos sometimes that doesn't even come close to counting i think. if an artist is hip hop but did one country/folk track on their albumn, like say k-os or someone, that doesn't make them in the country genre..

also i don't think that juanita..., cups, and banstyle... would be considered movements rather than three songs mixed together in a mind-boglingly good/seemless way. it's just not the same i thinkg.

i'd sooner group them as a 'jam band' as they have distinct hints of this while playing on-stage (although then again a jam band site would say no cause they aren't as boring as much as grateful dead or phish )

anyhow, my post is so rambling but i don't care as it won't make any difference in anyones mind cause it's the internet and we are argueing against cyberspace or something inhuman

bryantm3

10-26-2006, 07:04 PM

i don't think y'all are inhuman. you just have different opinions. some people do consider it proggy (see the people who've posted in the thread).

big screen satellite

10-27-2006, 04:31 AM

whatever happened to progressive 'house'....?

now that was a movement... fluke, the aloof, limbo, guerilla, leftfield...and mmm... and well i'll have to say - Lemon Interupt (aka Underworld)

BrotherLovesDub

10-27-2006, 08:03 AM

whatever happened to progressive 'house'....?

now that was a movement... fluke, the aloof, limbo, guerilla, leftfield...and mmm... and well i'll have to say - Lemon Interupt (aka Underworld)

Matt Val, shame on you...what about SPOOKY? Duncan Forbes and Charlie May? Have you no sense of decency sir? Those who do not remember the past, will be doomed to repeat it. And don't try to pull one of these, "oh, i mentioned Guerilla, isn't that good enough" lines. What about Justin Robertson, Zoom + Billy Nasty back when they was Prog? Confernece call is in order here, if you'll kindly close your copy of Excel and direct your attention to the front of the class, we'll begin very shorty.