what the hell does this mean?

It means that most prog rock bands sound better than most non-prog rock bands. I don't think I need to emphasize it, but IMO anyway.

If we're comparing genres to books, I'd say prog is no specific type of book. The first chapter might be fantasy, but suddenly it turns into a gut-wrenching detective story. But what's this, just as the villain was about to get caught... we're in the middle of an encyclopedia! After a few words have been explained, it goes on and takes the form of an autobiography.

My point being - I love prog because you never know what's gonna happen in the songs. It's full of surprises, twists and (this is the keyword) NOT BORING AND REPETITIVE. Now, I totally agree that prog is pretentious, bloated and at times meandering. That's just a part of the genre just as primitive, raw and simple can be used to describe punk (I'm not saying all punk fits those 3 words just as not all prog is pretentious - but most is). I like pretentious, over-ambitious, cheesy and artistic music, but that's just me.

Now excuse me while I visit the punk topic and loudly declare my distaste for that specific genre. (im not really going to)

Saying "this sounds stupid, I wont listen to any of it and still judge it" is very retarded.
Also all prog sounds the same.
Gong sounds exactly like Frank Zappa who sounds exactly like pink floyd who sounds exactly like Hatfield and the North who sounds exactly like Magma.

I whole heartly disagree with each sentence of this post. Please reconsider your statements.

It means that most prog rock bands sound better than most non-prog rock bands. I don't think I need to emphasize it, but IMO anyway.

first, you didn't say imo, you said it as if it were to be a fact.
And I already pointed out I can make a huge list of non-prog bands that are fantastic, so thanks for your omissive attitude.

If we're comparing genres to books, I'd say prog is no specific type of book. The first chapter might be fantasy, but suddenly it turns into a gut-wrenching detective story. But what's this, just as the villain was about to get caught... we're in the middle of an encyclopedia! After a few words have been explained, it goes on and takes the form of an autobiography.

give me a break

My point being - I love prog because you never know what's gonna happen in the songs. It's full of surprises, twists and (this is the keyword) NOT BORING AND REPETITIVE.
 Now, I totally agree that prog is pretentious, bloated and at times meandering. That's just a part of the genre just as primitive, raw and simple can be used to describe punk (I'm not saying all punk fits those 3 words just as not all prog is pretentious - but most is). I like pretentious, over-ambitious, cheesy and artistic music, but that's just me.

Besides I pointed out there is some prog I like. It is a minority, the rest of what I heard fits those negative descriptions. The excess of twists makes it boring, the excess of weedley weedly wee with the geetar or the keyboard or the flute makes me rather wanna punch the musicians (ON THE FACE), the appeal for virtuosity, the average length, it is a sum of factors that makes prog actually BORING AND REPETITIVE. Ironically punk may have a verse chorus structure sometimes (not always) but it doesnt feel repetitive because it is short. Try to listen to Minutemen and their records sounds like one surprise after the other. But that's just a taste thing, I've been pointing out how the lowest common denominator in prog makes it such a bloated genre.

Now excuse me while I visit the punk topic and loudly declare my distaste for that specific genre. (im not really going to)

You should.

why should I reconsider it? Frank Zappa sounds exactly like Pink Floyd because they are both prog. frank Zappa also sounds exactly like marillion because they are prog.

first, you didn't say imo, you said it as if it were to be a fact

It was - quite obviously - my opinion. First of all, unlike some others in this forum, I don't really consider myself as any kind of an final authority in music. Second, I hope I don't need to add an IMO to the end of my every sentence. If I'm going to post facts, I'm also going to give you links and proof. Not the other way around.

And I already pointed out I can make a huge list of non-prog bands that are fantastic, so thanks for your omissive attitude

And I can make a list of prog bands that are better than any band in your list, what's your point? (also my dad is stronger than yours)

You should.

I'm still not going to.

edit: Oh yeah this is all IMO just to be sure

I'm still not going to.

You really should! I didn't rant in the prog topic because I didn't feel comfortable shitting up someone else's article, but speaking personally I prefer people to argue and disagree with me about that stuff than just post "haven't heard but good job" or whatever. It's a lot more entertaining, anyway.

dp knows fuck all about punk rock though and if there's one argument more tired than PROG MORE LIKE BORING TECH WANKERY it's PUNK IS LOUD.

It was - quite obviously - my opinion. First of all, unlike some others in this forum, I don't really consider myself as any kind of an final authority in music. Second, I hope I don't need to add an IMO to the end of my every sentence. If I'm going to post facts, I'm also going to give you links and proof. Not the other way around.

of course it was an opinion, the way you said it was factual however.

And I can make a list of prog bands that are better than any band in your list, what's your point? (also my dad is stronger than yours)

...you came up first with that logic, let me refresh you:

and still they manage to sound better than most other rock bands out there, whahay!

My refutal is basically pointing out how ridiculous this statement is.

I'm still not going to.

Sucks. Catamites pretty much explained the essence of what I'm doing.

why should I reconsider it? Frank Zappa sounds exactly like Pink Floyd because they are both prog. frank Zappa also sounds exactly like marillion because they are prog.

If you really think that way, man I'm sorry.

I was actually mocking you but w/e

I was actually mocking you but w/e

but since I don't think that way I don't take it as a mock but rather yourself having a stupid opinion

hey guys stop shitting up my article you should all be talking about how awesome i am

actually, I'd like to know what you guys think of my articles (aside from, oh great job dude!). Like would you prefer I talk more about the bands' histories? or more about the general sound or my opinion of each band? any crits at all would be great.

You really should! I didn't rant in the prog topic because I didn't feel comfortable shitting up someone else's article, but speaking personally I prefer people to argue and disagree with me about that stuff than just post "haven't heard but good job" or whatever. It's a lot more entertaining, anyway.

i dunno if you mean this article but please do, i enjoy discussing music. its like discussing religion, only this matters.

Besides I pointed out there is some prog I like. It is a minority, the rest of what I heard fits those negative descriptions. The excess of twists makes it boring, the excess of weedley weedly wee with the geetar or the keyboard or the flute makes me rather wanna punch the musicians (ON THE FACE), the appeal for virtuosity, the average length, it is a sum of factors that makes prog actually BORING AND REPETITIVE. Ironically punk may have a verse chorus structure sometimes (not always) but it doesnt feel repetitive because it is short. Try to listen to Minutemen and their records sounds like one surprise after the other. But that's just a taste thing, I've been pointing out how the lowest common denominator in prog makes it such a bloated genre.

It is all just a taste thing you've discovered the secret to enlightenment. (Just as Kohntarkosz discovered the secret to eternal life.)

All this stuff which makes you find prog boring, I find it awesome for. What I can't stand is the 3 minute pop/punk/rock song that sings about sex or drugs or rock and roll. The basic song structure is just boring to me, and even though (with some exceptions) its a 3 minute song, I get bored halfway through becuase by that point, I feel like I've heard all the song has to offer (aside from another verse in the same melody/key/speed/style as the previous two).

Shep you've
A. Implied prog all sounds the same (which is what I'm getting at) and
B. Judged music such as zeuhl without listening to it. (which is really stupid)

Anybody with half a braincell can tell the difference between bands such as Magma who are as different from Jethro Tull, Marillion, and such than Miles Davis is different from friggin Aqua. This is like one of the main reasons I am strongly against genres, because people will be like "oh Prog, they must sound like |blah|" or "it's all wankery" without even bothering to listen to the music in question.

Because every 3 minute song follow the same formula.

every non-prog song (zing! or some shit)

intro-verse-chorus-verse-bridge-solo-verse-chorus-outro

Shit I have to rewrite all my music because my three minute songs don't follow that formula

Shep you've
A. Implied prog all sounds the same (which is what I'm getting at) and
B. Judged music such as zeuhl without listening to it. (which is really stupid)

A: Nope I didnt, and I made clear I don't think that way.
B: But I haven't judged music such as zeuhl. I judged prog rock. It's like you're saying I can't judge punk without first hearing sex pistols, ramones, dead kennedys, the germs, the melvins, new york dolls, the jam, stiff little fingers, etc, because mind you I heard none of these bands yet still know a lot bout punk, know what it sounds like, and such.

Shit I have to rewrite all my music because my three minute songs don't follow that formula

fuck formulas man, music is not meant to just fit formulas.
If you guys think punk is formulaic, you are way wrong.
In fact I could even say prog is formulaic.

B: But I haven't judged music such as zeuhl. I judged prog rock. It's like you're saying I can't judge punk without first hearing sex pistols, ramones, dead kennedys, the germs, the melvins, new york dolls, the jam, stiff little fingers, etc, because mind you I heard none of these bands yet still know a lot bout punk, know what it sounds like, and such.

You haven't judged prog rock though. You've judged a small part of it. Prog is a lot more than idk...Yes and pretentiousness. Prog is also Frank Zappa, Bob Dylan, King Crimson, Kayo Dot, Fantomas. Oh, Zeuhl is prog too.

Shit I have to rewrite all my music because my three minute songs don't follow that formula

You just might be prog then! Also, i think this entire argument is getting kinda out of hand with all the ppl being sarcastic except for Shepperd who can't pick up on sarcasm (or chooses not to because he's gay)

Zappa is more jazz rock than prog. I usually don't listen to Zappa's stuff that sound prog.
King Crimson is prog and I dig.
Fantomas is prog?? More like noise to me.
Haven't heard Bobby D's prog stuff. Unless you suppose most if not all his stuff is prog then I get where you are going but that's not the prog I speak of. (if Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited is prog then John Frusciante (a favourite of mine) is also prog)

I'm not picking up sarcasm because it is off-set. You guys suppose I imply certain things, which I don't. So I laugh em off and not because I'm homo.

lol also suddenly prog includes Bob Dylan hahahahahaha

he went above and beyond the call of duty

and while you can check wiki I wouldn't trust it enough to fully get an idea of what he's done. more like realize that he's more than an average country/folk artist.



BOB DYLAN IS BY NO MEANS PROGRESSIVE ROCK in the traditional sense. but he is prog.