Ah damn I still haven't seen that one
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
It sounds really good.
|
| |
it's fucking good i give it a solid 5/7 out of 5/6
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
Just watched the trailer, I could get into this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Take this conversation to a sex thread or something honestly [2]
I've become so obsessed with surround sound albums having driven my mum's car which has a surround set up
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
So the other day I was having a debate with this guy who said bands like Floyd, Supertramp, ELO, Hawkwind, Tull, Camel, etc, etc, can't be considered "prog" cause they don't play in certain specific tempos (3/4, 4/4, can't really remember, I'm not good with music's technical stuff) and I was saying prog is just to wide and varied to be categorized by such a basic criteria
watcha guys think?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
lol what DID he consider prog then?
|
| |
probably kc and rush
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
pretty much yeah, also ELP and Yes and more modern stuff like Tool
no wank no prog guys, duh
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
progressive rock was basically a movement started in the late 60s in an effort to push rock music to a place of higher importance than it was originally conceived to be, something started by pop/psych groups but not really focused on and more just incorporated into around their familiar sound and structure. while a lot of times this method of highlighting rock's credibility was done through complicated composition and complex time signatures to match symphonic and orchestral pieces (as these have always been seen in high regard by musicians), that was only a common piece of it, not criteria.
however movements do eventually tend to become genres, so it gets hairy trying to rationalize a checklist for bands that separated themselves from that movement or for those who came after. you can sort of just tell when something follows suite to the rest of the movement and thus can be slapped the genre label but this opens a can of worms of subjectivity. its also unfortunate that the word 'progressive' was chosen as its sort of pretentious and not always applicable to all the bands in the genre, and also applicable to a ton of rock albums who are most definitely outside the genre. its similar to idm in that its falsely suggestive but you just gotta look past that and realize its just a name
i dunno who supertramp or ELO are but the rest fit the bill imo. worth mentioning that floyd weren't entirely prog and had a lot of albums that weren't prog at all. they had a ton of psych elements across their discog and dabbled in space rock on a few. tull also got lumped into the genre with the release/acclaim of aqualung despite it being a folk/hard rock album cause prog was all the rage. so they sort of took it for a run in a tongue-in-cheek satire with a few true progressive albums but it was just them being extremely self aware. but for most of their discog they are not prog
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
"i dunno who supertramp or ELO are"
dude
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
not everyone is dad, sirloin
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Is ELO an acronym?
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
electric light orchestra?
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Yea nope
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
"not everyone is dad, sirloin"
c'mon fripp like people that doesn't know Mr. Blue Sky exists haha
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
but
daaaaaaaad
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
hey fripp have u checked Goat?
(also gonna kill u for that Space Ritual rating)
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I know Commune
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
check World Music m8
|
| |
|
|
