Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stimpee
except for my aversion to all things Rick Wakeman I have yet to express my opinion. (the wiki suggests that prog rock was "dismissed as pretentious and overblown" by the late 70s and that "this attitude has remained common to the present day".
the only thing i was even remotely "mad" about was not getting a straight answer. i wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.
no i think now i disagree. timeless no, cutting edge? well not all unchartered territory is desired cutting edge. edge, yes? cutting, probably not. although the movement was certainly different in the beginning of the early 70s. By the time punk came on the scene in '76? hardly.
and now to reply to holden:
1)Long compositions- ok, this is a similarity.
2)songs made up of shorter parts: this is more part of 1) and maybe riverrun only falls into this category but those songs are also separate songs and not 6 or 7 parts of one song.
3) intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives: im not sure what this means as far as prog rock goes. you could argue that norwegian black metal has impenetrable narratives.
4) Concept LP: no.
5) Prominent use of instruments unusual in rock music, including electronics, as well as unusual vocal styles: ive yet to hear a harpsichord solo, and electronics are hardly considered unusual.
6) Inclusion of classical pieces - none.
7) An aesthetic linking the music with visual art: this is commonplace and part of marketing these days everywhere.
8) use of sound effects - sampling is again rife. and underworld only use vocal samples AFAIK, which is not an "effect".
9) Solo passages : no.
10) Use of unusual rhythmic techniques, scales, tunings, time signatures: i see a tenuous link. unusual beats maybe, but techniques? use of scales perhaps.
So apart from the fact that UW have released some long songs, some of which have been in parts, its a bit of a stretch of the imagination. You're welcome to listen to your old prog rock albums (whether youre 15 or 43) but I dont think Underworld's name should be stained by prog rock comparisons.
once again, thank you for your replies. some of it I partially agree with and some of it not. for one, the "pretentious and overblown" bit of prog rock doesnt apply to Underworld, and I sincerely hope that they never do a concept album. I think they've been thru the daft phase in Freur and Underworld mk1.
|
prog rock isn't pretentious and overblown, and the wikipedia doesn't imply that it was. it implies that people think that about it, just because they don't understand it. just because something isn't particularly popular, doesn't mean it's bad.
also, if UW is totally unrelated to prog, how come all of us prog fans have showed up here after hearing UW? the results of the uw poll show that the most common 'other band' that we like is orbital, genesis, or moby. calling UW progressive isn't staining them, and i find it an insult to say that it is. there are many progressive genres outside of rock that are very very good (progressive jazz, progressive house, progressive metal, progressive-pop, etc.) . like i stated before, and you don't seem to understand, progressive doesn't mean yes or elp. it means that you're on the cutting edge and pioneering something no one else has done before. the root word of progressive is progress. that's what bands like The Beatles, Genesis, Brand X, Radiohead, and Underworld have done. they've paved the way to a new style of music. these 'progressive' bands are the most important bands of all, because whether their music was good or not, it made a signifigant impact on all music that came after it.