Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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:

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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.

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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.

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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.

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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.

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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?

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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

Re:
 

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.

Re: Underworld rejected from ProgArchives
 

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