Underworld rejected from ProgArchives - Page 4

bryantm3 · #31 10-26-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dubman

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 · #32 10-26-2006, 11:55 AM

(ahem)

Quote:

Originally Posted by holden

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...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty0900

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 · #33 10-26-2006, 12:01 PM

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

BrotherLovesDub · #34 10-26-2006, 01:23 PM

fuck it then, i won't post either!

BeautifulBurnout · #35 10-26-2006, 01:24 PM

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

bryantm3 · #36 10-26-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holden

(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 · #37 10-26-2006, 02:32 PM

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

stimpee · #38 10-26-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanakan

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

Its this one.

bryantm3 · #39 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 · #40 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