......if not, I think I can postulate a great argument for them to qualify for their first four albums (especially the first two)....However, its possible that they are riding that knife edge of progressive "Rock" and not "Progressive Rock"
Just curious of your opinions
Seriously?..I think I got redirected to PA.
It's '70s Rock, which as a genre was often "heady" due to then-zeitgeist, but not Progressive rock.
I would not call them prog, but they do have proggy moments such as this one. Probably my favorite song by them:
I've been a Heart fan since their first album, but they are not prog. There may be occasional moments, certainly. Great band regardless.
The Wilson sisters can write and sing lovely harmonies. Their autobiography was fairly good as well.
No, not "prog". They're better than prog.
Oh, so true!Originally Posted by GuitarGeek
Obviously.
"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
Better than whole genre?
I'm afraid that they were playing in the second league of the '70s Rock bands - because in the first league were The Who, Queen, The Rolling Stones, Bad Company, Peter Frampton, Bruce Springsteen...
Last edited by Svetonio; 02-06-2017 at 06:52 AM.
the question then becomes: "How many proggy moments does a band have to have to be deemed Prog?".....the first two albums are chock full of them, which is what prompted me to start this thread
Last edited by klothos; 02-06-2017 at 07:36 AM.
I posted this thread in full anticipation of expecting snarky-ness from the elitists --- You guys deliverObviously.
^ Well, at least the band had Mark Andes in their ranks. That ought to count for somewhat of a "genre legitimacy", I guess.
"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
IMHO not. I'd put them in that 'FM rock'/early AOR category of a somewhat easier-to-digest version of the rock bands of the late 60s/early 70s. Led Zeppelin were always the obvious influence in this case.
I don't see what's 'elitist' about finding the concept dubious.
Since being a member of PE, I find that the criteria varies from member to member -- some interpreting progressive Rock with "Progressive Rock" as the same thing while others don't
To some folks here, part of the Prog criteria is based on packaging: how a group is marketed including their album art - name - logo, commercial spotlight evasion, having prog 'tude, less visually charismatic, and (in some cases) more of a cult-ish fan base as part of that criteria ---- which has absolutely nothing to do with the music itself......
Last edited by klothos; 02-06-2017 at 09:48 AM.
I'd say it's this, if anything. I absolutely love those first five Heart albums, and I do hear some nods to "Progressive Rock" here and there on those albums. But it's not their bread and butter by any means, so I don't really consider them Progressive Rock. They definitely had their own sound, and definitely pushed the boundaries of rock music, so in that sense I suppose they were "progressive." But so many bands had elements like this in their music as well, so I think "riding the wave" of that sort of sound is a good description of what Heart did, and they did it well.
I think you're right. For me Progressive Rock albums are defined by their "immersion" in more challenging approaches to rock music. IMO, Heart lack that immersion. You clearly hear more "Proggy" stuff than I do, though I definitely hear it from time to time; but to me these albums aren't "chock full of Prog." It's more of an occasional spice. Heart's emphasis wasn't on pyrotechnics, virtuosity, or straying too far from conventional arrangements. To me, they were far more straightforward, but were immensely creative within that framework. Anne is a virtuoso singer, but she didn't apply her talents to particularly "virtuostic" singing intervals or melodies; she just killed it with more straightforward stuff. None of the other players, or the music itself, really push all that hard musically even when they are "pushing it" a bit, but the end result is fantastic within the rock context. Like Zeppelin.
Again, love me some Heart on those first five albums. But I've never considered them Progressive Rock like Yes, Genesis, KC, GG, ELP, etc. were in their primes.
Bill
I'll make this a trio.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"
President Harry S. Truman
Not really. I personally hear 'progressive rock' as being about experimentation and breaking musical barriers. I don't see how Heart did that, although I too appreciate their work. I think most AOR bands had an influence from the surface elements of some progressive rock (bravura synth solos and the like, 'mystical' lyrical content), it was part of their make-up, certainly at that time.
Im having two revelations in this thread: The first revelation is that part of the issue that I think we (in general) tend to label what is or isnt Prog by the artist...In actuality, this is wrong. It shouldnt even be judged album by album -- it should be judged from song to song, with some artists doing nothing but these type of songs (usually in full albums) while others may occasionally flirt with it ona song here and there -- but it doesnt make those songs any less Prog. I think many arguments here on PE can be avoided if this was the stance....The second thing is the realization that Prog itself isnt a well defined box: Its actually a gradient from one extreme (Prog) to the other (Not Prog) and a song can be dotted anywhere along that spectrum dependent on the factors and genetic makeup of the song.... Then we can see how many of the songs on Heart's first two albums are more "Prog" than some of the cuts on Yes' "90125".......or take a band like Sweet, whose body of work is mostly bubblegum, glitter-rock, and proto-metal yet appreciate a "Proggish" song that they have ("Medusa")
Some things are well-hidden. One example is "Barracuda": when the verse/vox starts, if I was to score this (the F Clef/Bass Clef, anyway) I would score this as a bar of 9/8......I dont count it like that when I perform it -- For the sake of the emphasis of groove/locking in with the drums, I simply count the changes in fours:
(Em) One - 2 - 3 - 4
Two - 2 - 3 - 4
Three -
(C) One - 2 - 3 - 4
Two - 2 - 3 - 4
When counting a bar of 9/8 as part of a 4/4 drive , the change happens on the "2" of the third bar - where the snare usually goes in a 4/4 drive...Its really weird and can become a total clusterfuck if the rest of the group isnt counting this correctly...especially the drummer. Thats a pretty daring thing to do in a song, and its cleverly disguised
this is just one example
Last edited by klothos; 02-06-2017 at 11:55 AM.
I'd agree with this, but under these circumstance the songs themselves have to embody all the aspects of Prog Rock for me to consider them Prog. Heart songs rarely have everything from the bravura to the gentle, so I can't name one song that would totally qualify in my mind. The nice thing about measuring it across an album is that the album itself can embody a variety of elements from song to song, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Heart adds up a bit better to me in this regard, but those early albums still aren't Prog Rock to me.
You're just now realizing that?
Yeah, it's a great moment in a great song. It puts the listener a little off kilter in a gentle way, similar to the odd meter in Black Dog or The Ocean. Is it daring? For the day, I don't think so, and even bands like Soundgarden and Tool flirt with odd meters in their songs, so it's not that alien to the rock scene. To me, there's a lot more to it to be Progressive Rock, and while moments in rock stuff may make the rock more interesting, they don't make it Progressive Rock in my book. But obviously, there are different books out there on that subject.
Bill
In a word, no.
No Mellotrons. No flutes. No advanced time signatures. No side-long epics. No lyrics or covers about floating mountains.
Led Zeppelin, but with ovaries.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Is Heart prog? Who cares? Heart's awesome. Ann's one of the best singers on record (feel free to cut me down if you disagree).
Sheesh, if I couldn't listen to something because it ain't "prog"...I'd have a much smaller collection.
Better have a listen to Dreamboat Annie and Little Queen again.
When Heart started getting a lot of airplay in Boston in 1977 or so, the radio DJs lumped them in with the perception of what New Wave was. Playing them along with the Ramones, Mink DeVille, Television, and the like. I didn't buy that characterization at all, and I can't buy them as prog, either.
Lou
Looking forward to my day in court.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks