Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 130

Thread: 8 of the Best Progressive Rock Albums of All Time

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,902
    Good list. Would have liked to see Gentle Giant up there though.
    The Prog Corner

  2. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
    Back in the 70s we were considering Can as one of the progressive bands. I filed them in the "progressive" section of my shelves next to Genesis, Gentle Giant, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Yes, Procol Harum, Amon Duul 2. It's Rush, Be Bop Deluxe, Cockney Rebel, Roxy Music and 10CC that weren't there.
    I am just glad that Can made a best example list... I agree that the bands you mention do not belong, except for maybe Be Bops sunburst finish. I know what I am trying to say is confusing. Does anyone get my point at all?
    Still alive and well...

  3. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by grego View Post
    Sound effects they love to incoroporate into their balladier's, singer-songwriters music, is derivation from psychedelic era, that's their views on arrangement, nothing wrong with it. Tempo changes? They have quite a bit. That doesn't distract me from the main character of their music. Convenient rock, masterfully designed as something bigger, than it is. Only my opinion, of course. In the early years they recorded some very interesting experimental things, since Meddle they changed the direction. PS I have never seen any statements of Pink Floyd musicians, about them belonging to prog category.

  4. #29
    Back in the 70s... they all belonged in the list, even Rush, Roxy, Nelson/BeBop et al ...not because they sounded the same, but because they sounded different.
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  5. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    As to Pink Floyd:

    Progressive rock is not a yes-or-no proposition. It is a spectrum, with mainstream rock at one end, and various musics that aren't rock - classical music, jazz of various types, pure sonic experimentation, follow your own muse wherever it goes singer-songwriter - at the other. Just about any prog artist you can name lies somewhere in-between. So Pink Floyd - for whom the overall sound and individual songs are very close to mainstream, but the concepts are prog - absolutely belong here, as an example of the inside end, the one close to the mainstream.

    That said, I could argue that they need an example of the outer end. Can are perhaps meant as that - but there are really several different outside ends, and Can is only one particular idiosyncratic one. I might have liked Henry Cow's In Praise of Learning, maybe to replace Thick as a Brick or Court of the Crimson King. Or just expand the list to nine. Or add Magma's MDK as well, bringing in a major French contribution to prog, and make it an even ten.
    Last edited by Baribrotzer; 03-23-2016 at 11:44 AM.

  6. #31
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    10,222
    It's not a bad list, I like CAN being on it, they are certainly progressive. Pink Floyd are deemed progressive from their early Piper days, when they were much more different & cutting edge than most bands, not the DSOTM through Animals albums though there are certainly had progressive elements.
    Ian

    Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
    https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/

    Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
    I blame Wynton, what was the question?
    There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.

  7. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotum Scissor View Post
    Avant-rock is an abbreviation for avant-garde rock, which designates a spectrum of qualities and adherences inherent in the broader connotations of the music itself, it's not a style - and it *certainly* is not a "subgenre of prog". (...)
    Prog(ressive music) was / is an umbrella for various *progressive* sub-genres or genres (or *styles* - because some people are taking that *sub* literary, so they don't like the term *subgenre*) and it's not complicated for understanding that avant-rock was considered as prog as same as some other progressive subgenre e.g. symphonic rock.

    Sorry, but Pink Floyd never was under the same umbrella, because they were part of 60s English psychedelic rock movement as well. And prog wasn't developed from psychedelia movement - historically even more important thing than prog because it's not "only" music but also painting and film. Many people don't understand that prog is completely authentic music and that it's not a child of psych as Jeff Rindskopf suggested in his article 8 of the Best Progressive Rock Albums of All Time.

    Pink Floyd belongs to different umbrella i.e. psych umbrella. Furthermore, they were only one successful English band - from already mentioned English psychedelic movement - who managed to still to be psych after the psych movement died in the begining of 70s. And yes, they also managed to still to be quite experimental and great at their 70s psych masterpieces - except those shamelessly commercial, chill-out psych albums TDSotM and WYWH. But they never were prog as ELP, Genesis, Can or Kansas. In 70s, Pink Floyd were (great) blues-rock based psychedelia.

    Okay, the revisionism is done due to Internet sites' "specialists" and that is that. But, to put Pink Floyd stuff on the list as the best prog stuff, it's undoubtedly nonsense.
    Hey, what's next thing regarding that revisionism? Maybe Seventh Son of a Seventh Son as the best prog album ever?
    Last edited by Svetonio; 03-23-2016 at 11:32 AM.

  8. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberrybrick View Post
    Back in the 70s... they all belonged in the list, even Rush, Roxy, Nelson/BeBop et al ...not because they sounded the same, but because they sounded different.
    In the 70s, when they were current bands, Rush were considered as melodic hard rock, same like for example Blue Oyster Cult; Roxy Music were considered as Art Rock.

  9. #34
    Estimated Prophet notallwhowander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coastal California
    Posts
    798
    Your taxonomies are fundamentally absurd. Your claims or revisionism are based on a false premise of some kind of original consensus of what "progressive rock" was. Nothing I've read, outside of your posts, backs up this idea.
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

  10. #35
    If Eloy is progressive rock, I don't see why Pink Floyd isn't. Eloy - Silent cries and mighty echoes had a lot in common with Wish you were here.
    Last edited by Rarebird; 03-23-2016 at 12:41 PM.

  11. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    Sorry, but Pink Floyd never was under the same umbrella, because they were part of 60s English psychedelic rock movement as well. And prog wasn't developed from psychedelia movement - historically even more important thing than prog because it's not "only" music but also painting and film. Many people don't understand that prog is completely authentic music and that it's not a child of psych as Jeff Rindskopf suggested in his article 8 of the Best Progressive Rock Albums of All Time.
    I can agree with that being your opinion. But I can't agree with it otherwise. I will, though, ask: Why and how is prog not a child of psych, and why and how does that make it "completely authentic". And would it not be "completely authentic" if it were in fact a child of psych?

  12. #37
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    10,222
    History of the world according to Svet stated as fact and all other opinions deemed revisionist. Your wasting your breath guys.
    Ian

    Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
    https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/

    Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
    I blame Wynton, what was the question?
    There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    Prog(ressive music) was / is an umbrella for various *progressive* sub-genres or genres (or *styles* [...] and it's not complicated for understanding that avant-rock was considered as prog as same as some other progressive subgenre e.g. symphonic rock.

    Sorry, but Pink Floyd never was under the same umbrella, because they were part of 60s English psychedelic rock movement as well. And prog wasn't developed from psychedelia movement - historically even more important thing than prog because it's not "only" music but also painting and film. Many people don't understand that prog is completely authentic music and that it's not a child of psych [...]

    Pink Floyd belongs to different umbrella i.e. psych umbrella.
    Uhm, not exactly.

    First of all, there's no need for me to feel "sorry" about anything of what you write here (although I DO feel very, very, very sorry about other silly things). Second, "Prog(ressive)" can unfortunately/luckily not be both an "umbrella" on the one hand and a "completely authentic music" on the other; there's no apparent mysterious vacuum for it to pop up from - rather it evolved from given sources, some of them firmly established. Thirdly, the concepts of "genre" and "style" are not synonymous in musicology; genre denotes an overall adherence of an artist (The Byrds being "rock"), while style descibes the components of a given expression (The Byrds being a rock band playing country music on Sweetheart of the Rodeo). Fourthly (?), progressive rock as phenomenon within rock culture as such *DID* arise partly from psychedelia (which was an artistic movement at large, yes), as the latter essentially introduced a set of traits and virtues which were then studied, reinterpreted, reevaluated and explored further by what they called 'progressive' artists from as early as 1968, to the point where the term 'psychedelic' was no longer applied about rock music (check Gong, Agitation Free or numerous others). Fifthly (!), 'avant-rock' as a whole and the more specified 'avant-progressive' are not the same thing. It's not complicated for understanding this shit.

    And you didn't answer what on Earth 'progressiveness' is supposed to imply, and why artists and works that are then higher in 'progressiveness' than Genesis or Yes (or other usual ones) still haven't neutralized the inclusion of these names in the grander hall of ultimate progressiveness.
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    History of the world according to Svet stated as fact and all other opinions deemed revisionist.
    And to think that I wrote parts of my thesis in historical science about the phenomenon of applicable revisionism. Go figure.

    I feel some further progressiveness coming on...
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by grego View Post
    PS I have never seen any statements of Pink Floyd musicians, about them belonging to prog category.
    Of course that you never seen any statement like that, because they were kings of psych, not the kings of prog. Also, there are not any article writen by some journalist back in the day where Pink Floyd were called *prog*, simply because in that case that journalist would have lost his job. Pink Floyd were provided as "prog" by Internet "prog specialists" - not before the internet forums.
    And I said this as a big fan of Mr Gilmour.

    p.s. Prog is not a badge of honor as some people thinking.

  16. #41
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Planet Lovetron
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by notallwhowander View Post
    Your taxonomies are fundamentally absurd. Your claims or revisionism are based on a false premise of some kind of original consensus of what "progressive rock" was. Nothing I've read, outside of your posts, backs up this idea.
    He doesn't know what he's talking about. I figured that out several weeks ago and don't bother arguing with him anymore.

  17. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,485
    ^I wasted several minutes of my life finding that out, vis a vis The Who.

    A reasonable attempt at covering the bases. Every one of these albums is great.

  18. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
    I can agree with that being your opinion. But I can't agree with it otherwise. I will, though, ask: Why and how is prog not a child of psych, and why and how does that make it "completely authentic". And would it not be "completely authentic" if it were in fact a child of psych?
    If prog would not be completely authentic (in its various sub-genres), it would not existed.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    In the 70s, when they were current bands, Rush were considered as melodic hard rock, same like for example Blue Oyster Cult; Roxy Music were considered as Art Rock.
    My point isn't what they were considered. All those bands were listened to... which leads to the bigger point: They were all a part of the same continuum, the progressive continuum
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  20. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberrybrick View Post
    My point isn't what they were considered. All those bands were listened to... which leads to the bigger point: They were all a part of the same continuum, the progressive continuum
    Well, Bob Dylan was literaly progressive when he took electric guitar, and so what? Is he *prog*? Of course not.
    Many acts were / are literaly progressive but not *progressive music* at all.

  21. #46
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Planet Lovetron
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotum Scissor View Post
    Uhm, not exactly.

    First of all, there's no need for me to feel "sorry" about anything of what you write here (although I DO feel very, very, very sorry about other silly things). Second, "Prog(ressive)" can unfortunately/luckily not be both an "umbrella" on the one hand and a "completely authentic music" on the other; there's no apparent mysterious vacuum for it to pop up from - rather it evolved from given sources, some of them firmly established. Thirdly, the concepts of "genre" and "style" are not synonymous in musicology; genre denotes an overall adherence of an artist (The Byrds being "rock"), while style descibes the components of a given expression (The Byrds being a rock band playing country music on Sweetheart of the Rodeo). Fourthly (?), progressive rock as phenomenon within rock culture as such *DID* arise partly from psychedelia (which was an artistic movement at large, yes), as the latter essentially introduced a set of traits and virtues which were then studied, reinterpreted, reevaluated and explored further by what they called 'progressive' artists from as early as 1968, to the point where the term 'psychedelic' was no longer applied about rock music (check Gong, Agitation Free or numerous others). Fifthly (!), 'avant-rock' as a whole and the more specified 'avant-progressive' are not the same thing. It's not complicated for understanding this shit.

    And you didn't answer what on Earth 'progressiveness' is supposed to imply, and why artists and works that are then higher in 'progressiveness' than Genesis or Yes (or other usual ones) still haven't neutralized the inclusion of these names in the grander hall of ultimate progressiveness.
    *Great* post, Richard.

  22. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotum Scissor View Post
    (...) 'avant-rock' as a whole and the more specified 'avant-progressive' are not the same thing. (...)
    Yes, it is the same thing, and the term "avant-prog" wasn't existed before Internet.
    "Avant-prog" is actually a stupid term invented by stupid people.
    It's quite same like "symphonic prog"; thus, to say, "hey, this band play symphonic-progressive rock" instead to call it "symphonic rock" as it is historical term for the subgenre, it's like if somebody ask you "which car you drive?" and you answer, for example, "I drive a fast car Ferrari" - *fast* is pretty superfluous word, isn't?

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    Yes, it is the same thing, and the term "avant-prog" wasn't existed before Internet.
    "Avant-prog" is actually a stupid term invented by stupid people.
    Well, someone should obviously tell all of this to stupid people like Simon Frith, David Keenan, Pierro Scaruffi, Simon Reynolds, Dominic Leone, Chris Cutler, David Toop and so on, and then proceed to tell Jim O'Rourke, Thurston Moore, Ikue Mori, Michael Gira, Brian Carpenter, Rene Lussier, Marc Ribot and others that their entire musical accomplishment amounts to a "subgenre of prog".
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  24. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    Well, Bob Dylan was literaly progressive when he took electric guitar, and so what? Is he *prog*? Of course not.
    Many acts were / are literaly progressive but not *progressive music* at all.
    Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.


    However I will tell you that my sister lived in Yugoslavia in the late 70s early 80s and my takeaway from the music there was three bands: Bijelo Dugme, Divlje Jagode (I think she dated one of them), and Leb i Sol. The rest.... not so much. I do however have boxes of cassettes of "gypsy music" (his words) that my dad listened to, and can tell you none of it is "prog".
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    Of course that you never seen any statement like that, because they were kings of psych, not the kings of prog. Also, there are not any article writen by some journalist back in the day where Pink Floyd were called *prog*, simply because in that case that journalist would have lost his job. Pink Floyd were provided as "prog" by Internet "prog specialists" - not before the internet forums. p.s. Prog is not a badge of honor as some people thinking.
    1) I can not recall ever encountering a single written incident in which a member of Pink Floyd related to genre distinctions in the manner you imply, and certainly not about them in any way being "kings" of anything - consequently they assumingly aren't "psych" either, according to your logic.
    2) No other artists were designated as "prog" in anyone's writing either, seeing as that abbreviation wasn't invented yet.
    3) No music journalist has/would ever "lose his/her job" over allegedly designating an artist with the "wrong" genre adherence.
    4) Pink Floyd were not submitted to revisionist definition by some internet conspiracy, but placed among the so-called 'dinosaurs' already during the latter half of the 70s. I personally own a number of encyclopedias and indexes and other books from the 80s in which PF's relation to 'progressive rock' appears absolutely axiomatic. And there was no internet.

    Adherence to a genre doesn't necessitate exclusion from all other genres. When Rush made their 'progressive' records during the late 70s, this didn't make them any less of a hard rock trio.
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •