KVR Audio

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:07 am

Actually I have seen more contempt for prog rock....across highly disparate message boards, than any other single genre of music. This has always puzzled me.

But then, lots of things puzzle me.

I am, perhaps, too easily puzzled.

hao nao · Post by **hao nao** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:12 am

does the turquoise question the amber or the ruby or the mumbletyplasm or the fluorogreta? I say nay, yet yay, for it is their way!

intel · Post by **intel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:27 am

there's lots of hip hop that I like. some country. hell, I'll even listen to polka.

but I really cannot abide by techno or trance. and I really do loathe anything under the banner of "prog rock". and not just for the pretentiousness of such a title, either. I honestly don't think the word "wankery" existed before prog rock. I've forced myself to listen to lots and lots of it trying, in vain, to decipher what so many find so great - and it just eludes me. same goes for "EM" (Tangerine Dream, Jarre, Vangelis and the ilk). perhaps I'm too young and the rest of you cling to it out of nostalgia, but its just far too dated and uninspiring for this postmodern man.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:01 am

intel wrote:I really do loathe anything under the banner of "prog rock". and not just for the pretentiousness of such a title, either. I honestly don't think the word "wankery" existed before prog rock. I've forced myself to listen to lots and lots of it trying, in vain, to decipher what so many find so great - and it just eludes me.... perhaps I'm too young and the rest of you cling to it out of nostalgia, but its just far too dated and uninspiring for this postmodern man.

"Dated"? "wankery"? Are these terms being applied across the board to anyone in a band that features guitar solos? Could you please be more detailed about whose music, exactly, is being dismissed here?

Because, being old (and rather curmudgeonly) I can see huge differences between the music of various bands that have been, for whatever reason (and never by themselves) dubbed "prog rock".

Yes sounds nothing like King Crimson. Rush sounds nothing like Queen. All of their music is dated? Forever? Bummer.

But why, exactly?

And what of more recent vaguely prog rock style bands such as the Mars Volta and Tomahawk?

Are they, too, dated?

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:06 am

intel wrote:there's lots of hip hop that I like.

I knew that was a dry sense of humour being displayed earlier....

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:08 am

herodotus wrote: And what of more recent vaguely prog rock style bands such as the Mars Volta and Tomahawk?

Are they, too, dated?

Mars volta is purty good...I can dig it.

intel · Post by **intel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:19 am

herodotus wrote:"Dated"?

yes. I'm sorry... but even Wendy Carlos was more experimental with her synth sounds than any keyboard player Yes employed.

"wankery"?

oh christ yes. even the term "progressive rock" is excessively wankery.

"progressive" being defined as "moving forward" or "favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods". if that's not pure and unadulterated wank, I don't know what is. if that's not elitism, then I've been grossly misinformed about the definition of "elitism".

Are these terms being applied across the board to anyone in a band that features guitar solos?

I think its rather silly (and more than slightly moronic) that you would allude to the fact that anyone disparaging prog rock would apply that disdain to any band that produced a song with guitar solos. even GG Allin had the occasional lead guitarist in his band.

Could you please be more detailed about whose music, exactly, is being dismissed here?

dismissed? obviously you glanced over the part where I mentioned that I've tried (repeatedly) to understand the infatuation and just cannot grasp the worship of the genre. but, for the sake of argument, bands I've listened to in hopes of gaining an appreciation for prog rock: Yes, King Crimson, Genesis (early, the 80's pop stuff I love), Ozric Tentacles, Gong, Rush, ELP, etc etc etc

Yes sounds nothing like King Crimson. Rush sounds nothing like Queen. All of their music is dated? Forever? Bummer.

But why, exactly?

why are they dated? because its not timeless. as I said in my initial post, perhaps I'm too young to appreciate all of this nostalgia, but in my lifetime the analog synthesizer has been pushed to its utmost and that envelope has been rehashed a million times over. listening to Keith Emerson twiddle about on a huge pseudo modular system with what amounts to the most mundane synth sounds available at that time doesn't impress me. when bands dubbed "prog rock" were concerning themselves with creating the greatest twiddly twiddly rock anthem of all time, there were many other bands who were seriously pushing the envelope and were seriously accomplishing things that had never been done. why does prog rock sound dated? because it was too short-sighted. there's either the obsession with creating twiddly twiddly songs that are strictly based on technic and have virtually no emotional content or the obsession with showcasing the bare minimum of the extent of the technology available to them at the time.

give me mid-70's DEVO any day over King Crimson. more heart. more soul. more emotion. and pushing an envelope incomprehensible to most prog rock artists.

And what of more recent vaguely prog rock style bands such as the Mars Volta and Tomahawk?

never heard Tomahawk. Mars Volta I found to be a shallow and uninspired shadow of At The Drive-In - which had their moments of brilliance...

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:23 am

oic..I thought you were reviewing some songs in the music forum.....errrrrr

jens · Post by **jens** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:55 am

herodotus wrote: And what of more recent vaguely prog rock style bands such as the Mars Volta and Tomahawk?

Are they, too, dated?

what makes you call Tomahawk prog?

what about Refused then or System of a Down?

edit: fixed the most stupid typo ever

intel · Post by **intel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:57 am

soulkraka wrote:
intel wrote:there's lots of hip hop that I like.
I knew that was a dry sense of humour being displayed earlier....

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:31 am

intel wrote:
herodotus wrote:"Dated"?
yes. I'm sorry... but even Wendy Carlos was more experimental with her synth sounds than any keyboard player Yes employed.

"wankery"?
oh christ yes. even the term "progressive rock" is excessively wankery.

"progressive" being defined as "moving forward" or "favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods". if that's not pure and unadulterated wank, I don't know what is. if that's not elitism, then I've been grossly misinformed about the definition of "elitism".

Are these terms being applied across the board to anyone in a band that features guitar solos?
I think its rather silly (and more than slightly moronic) that you would allude to the fact that anyone disparaging prog rock would apply that disdain to any band that produced a song with guitar solos. even GG Allin had the occasional lead guitarist in his band.

Could you please be more detailed about whose music, exactly, is being dismissed here?
dismissed? obviously you glanced over the part where I mentioned that I've tried (repeatedly) to understand the infatuation and just cannot grasp the worship of the genre. but, for the sake of argument, bands I've listened to in hopes of gaining an appreciation for prog rock: Yes, King Crimson, Genesis (early, the 80's pop stuff I love), Ozric Tentacles, Gong, Rush, ELP, etc etc etc

Yes sounds nothing like King Crimson. Rush sounds nothing like Queen. All of their music is dated? Forever? Bummer.

But why, exactly?
why are they dated? because its not timeless. as I said in my initial post, perhaps I'm too young to appreciate all of this nostalgia, but in my lifetime the analog synthesizer has been pushed to its utmost and that envelope has been rehashed a million times over. listening to Keith Emerson twiddle about on a huge pseudo modular system with what amounts to the most mundane synth sounds available at that time doesn't impress me. when bands dubbed "prog rock" were concerning themselves with creating the greatest twiddly twiddly rock anthem of all time, there were many other bands who were seriously pushing the envelope and were seriously accomplishing things that had never been done. why does prog rock sound dated? because it was too short-sighted. there's either the obsession with creating twiddly twiddly songs that are strictly based on technic and have virtually no emotional content or the obsession with showcasing the bare minimum of the extent of the technology available to them at the time.

give me mid-70's DEVO any day over King Crimson. more heart. more soul. more emotion. and pushing an envelope incomprehensible to most prog rock artists.

And what of more recent vaguely prog rock style bands such as the Mars Volta and Tomahawk?
never heard Tomahawk. Mars Volta I found to be a shallow and uninspired shadow of At The Drive-In - which had their moments of brilliance...

My but we are punk rock.

But why this hostility?

Did someone once torture you while playing the complete works of Keith Emerson or something?

Why this hostile stuff about "pushing an envelope incomprehensible to most prog rock artists"?

How can someone who is admittedly hostile to a (pseudo) genre of music know what is or is not comprehensible to "most" of the practitioners of this putative genre?

And what, pray tell, is this "twiddle" you speak of? And why do you regard it with such visceral loathing? How is it more harmful than, say, riding a bicycle? Why must you dismiss the hard work of obviously talented people with such vitriol? You like DEVO more than King Crimson? Cool!! I, on the other hand, prefer King Crimson. Not cool? Oh, its ok, because I am an old guy, and its nostalgia for me.

And so I can tell myself my pathetic little lies about the brilliant interaction between Bill Bruford and John Wetton in 74 King Crimson.

And the almost superhuman feat that was Jethro Tulls "A Passion Play", that, of course, was all just, what was the term...'widdly'...'twiddly'...no.... "Wankery", thats it!! Wankery! (You kids with your newfangled lingo!)

And the shivers that I get when I hear that part of 'La Villa Strangiato', those are of course the result of way too many years of twisting my ponytail while smoking weed.

Thanks for setting me straight on this stuff.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:40 am

Jens wrote:
herodotus wrote: And what of more recent vaguely prog rock style bands such as the Mars Volta and Tomahawk?

Are they, too, dated?
what makes you Tomahawk call prog?

what about Refused then or System of a Down?

The prog rock roots of Duane Denison are well documented. The influence of Fripp in particular is pretty undisguised.

And I have heard people call 'System' prog rock. Tool as well. Some seem to think that anything except Slayer, Deicide and whatnot is something other than metal.

I try to stay out of these arguments.

jens · Post by **jens** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:52 am

Tool is prog - hard to explain why, but the odd time-signatures are part of the reason... Tool is absolutely not metal, primarily due to the lack of clichés

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:27 am

..so how do I get that odd vocal thing that Cher does on 'I got you babe'? sorry 'Believe'..

DSP

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:37 am

does this prog music thing export vst?

The argument that started in vurts song thread thread