Underworld rejected from ProgArchives

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

Underworld rejected from ProgArchives

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.

[BeautifulBurnout]

"Trashed" is a big word. The argument was put. Not everyone accepted it.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by stimpee

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]

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]

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.

[Icke]

Originally Posted by King of Snake

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 .

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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]

Originally Posted by King of Snake

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.

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.

[BrotherLovesDub]

fuck it then, i won't post either!

[BeautifulBurnout]

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

[sanakan]

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