Not Prog
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
rec.music.progressive only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

rec.music.progressive Profile…
 Up
Not Prog         


Author: Manitou
Date: Feb 13, 2008 20:47

I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were prog? If not
why?
Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa

--
A persons a person, no matter how small
~Dr. Seuss

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
11 Comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: rojon
Date: Feb 13, 2008 20:51

On Feb 13, 11:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were  prog? If not
> why?
>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa
>

MAN! Homework.
I knew I should have picked another thread.
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: Manitou
Date: Feb 13, 2008 22:05

On 13-Feb-2008, rojon aol.com> wrote:
> MAN! Homework.
> I knew I should have picked another thread.

I'll settle for your opinion on if you like them
--
Without music, life would be a mistake.
~Nietzsche

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: PStoller
Date: Feb 14, 2008 13:23

On Feb 13, 8:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were prog? If not
> why?
>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa

I like 'em all except Flaming Lips (whom I don't dislike; just don't
really know their work.) Radiohead certainly owes a debt to Prog, but
I don't think of them as being Prog. Likewise 10cc, which was a sort
of pop/prog schizo band (with Godley & Creme representing the more
progressive half: "L" and "Freeze Frame" are about as close to Prog as
anyone from 10cc ever got.) Zappa, on the other hand, is more-prog-
than-Prog; Prog stripped of its grandiose cliches, and with more wit
and funk than most of the genre ever possessed.
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: Chris Jemmett
Date: Feb 14, 2008 17:00

On Feb 13, 11:51 pm, rojon aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
>
>> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
>> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
>> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
>> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were  prog? If not
>> why?
>>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa
>
> MAN! Homework.
> I knew I should have picked another thread.

It WILL be on the test.
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: rojon
Date: Feb 14, 2008 20:27

On Feb 14, 8:00 pm, Chris Jemmett rogers.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:51 pm, rojon aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 11:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
>
>>> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
>>> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
>>> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
>>> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were  prog? If not
>>> why?
>>>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa
>
>> MAN! Homework.
>> I knew I should have picked another thread.
>
> It WILL be on the test.

then, better sooner than later...Yes?
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: videosmm
Date: Feb 16, 2008 14:04

On Feb 14, 11:27 pm, rojon aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:00 pm, Chris Jemmett rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 11:51 pm, rojon aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 13, 11:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
>
>>>> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
>>>> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
>>>> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
>>>> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were  prog? If not
>>>> why?
>>>>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa
>
>>> MAN! Homework.
>>> I knew I should have picked another thread.
>
>> It WILL be on the test.
>
> then, better sooner than later...Yes? ...
Show full article (1.12Kb)
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
Date: Feb 16, 2008 14:49

On Feb 13, 10:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were  prog? If not
> why?
>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa

Zappa was experimental rock. I dont know whether exp rock can be
called prog. If not that disqualifies Floyd, Can, Velvet Underground
etc.
Radiohead falls in only one category - boring 'c' rock
Flaming Lips -- dont give a damn
Show full article (1.03Kb)
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: vrooomed
Date: Feb 20, 2008 05:09

On Feb 13, 11:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
>  Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa

Radiohead's "Kid A" album (er, CD) is actually quite progressive in
nature, although I doubt anyone would call it "Prog Rock" in the sense
of what Prog Rock is usually defined by (i.e., the classics from the
70's, Marillion, Flower Kings, Spock's Beard - you know, time
signature changes and key changes). There are songs with a jazzy feel
(The National Anthem), almost ambient (Everything in It's Right
Place), pure pop (Optimistic), and stuff I don't know how to classify
(Idioteque). It's an album that's truly all over the place, but for
some reason, it winds up working.

It is definitely my favorite album of theirs. The other stuff
(including "OK Computer") is not really prog, but their music is
certainly in a category all its own.

--vrooomed--
no comments
Re: Not Prog         


Author: Godolphin&fellow
Date: Feb 22, 2008 05:19

On Feb 16, 5:49 pm, Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:47 pm, Mani...@usenet.com wrote:
>
>> I read some interesting descriptions of some Phychdelic acts on places like
>> Prog Archives and Dime. Their fans seem to go out of their way to avoid
>> giving them a Prog label and often the bands avoid labeling themselves as
>> Prog. Without going Raja do you think these bands are/were prog? If not
>> why?
>> Radiohead, 10cc, Flaming Lips, Zappa
>
> Zappa was experimental rock. I dont know whether exp rock can be
> called prog. If not that disqualifies Floyd, Can, Velvet Underground
> etc.
> Radiohead falls in only one category - boring 'c' rock
> Flaming Lips -- dont give a damn
Show full article (1.14Kb)
no comments
1 2