/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

>>53580973
Some prog bands are genuine cheesy trash though.

>>53581024
When you're talking the upper echelon of music some bands are going to be better than others.

>prog bands crawl so far up their own ass they start to come out their own mouths
>punk, metal, grunge, alternative make songs short enough to be played on the radio

>>53581077
I think that's the plot to The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway.

>>53581077
>>53581111
Nice numerals, but you're still wrong friends.

>>53580973
Well if by art music you mean music associated with academia and/or avant-garde, then I think a selective portion of rock music qualifies as legitimate. And I don't think it's even a question that some prog bands would be included in the conversation.
Personally I would say:
- Zappa / Mothers of Invention
- King Crimson
- Soft Machine
- Mahavishnu Orchestra
- Yes
etc.

Rock has been a legitimate form of art music for a solid 50 years now

>not wanting to make prog means you're degrading the genre
I'm sure there are quite a bit of guitar players that play well enough that they could play prog but just don't want to. I think rock would be even deader if the only form of rock music was prog rock. I like some prog but not enough to want it to take over the entire genre.

>>53581555
So, you're saying prog rock wouldn't seem so cool if it weren't for those other subgenres douchin' it up?

>>53581654
No, I'm saying that I don't like prog enough to hope or want it to be the only thing that comes out of the genre "rock". Has nothing to do with the other genres making it seem better since that's what it seems your post is saying.

If anything Punk, Grunge and Indie proved that (rock) music is a legit form of art, just in there own ways.

>tfw prog rock isn't even prog

Krautrock was the closest rock has come to art music.

>>53581698
>Has nothing to do with the other genres making it seem better since that's what it seems your post is saying
So, it's just inherently better then?

>rock is a genre
Lmao

>tfw there are people on /mu/ right now who consider Canterbury Scene, Krautrock, Avant-Prog, Zeuhl, and even Space Rock to be sub-genres from Progressive Rock

>>53581803
They are technically progressive rock, but not as in the genre. Because the genre is a complete joke that isn't progressive at all.

>>53581803
>Progressive rock is a pretty broad term, I think you're confusing that with just the bands commonly associated with the word prog.

In other words: Progressive rock encomasses prog, canterbury scene, krautrock, etc.

>>53581803
Isn't zeuhl and avant-prog almost the same thing, exact zeuhl uses that made up language?

>>53581913
Yes and no.

>>53580973
>thinking Prog is anything but wank
>using the term art music straight faced

>>53581883
No, they are not. They are all different genres.

>>53581910
Progressive Rock is a genre. Krautrock is also a genre. But these two had nothing in common. There's no overlap between the two.

>>53581913
Not really, Zeuhl is almost a thing on it's own.

>>53581962
Krautrock is progressive rock music.

All music is art
fag

>>53581803
In general progressive rock added 19th century classical elements and "serious" jazz (read: not lounge jazz) while krautrock was more forward thinking in nature by following and incorporating contemporary classical elements and electronics.

>>53581983
It's progressive rock (as an adjective), but it's not Progressive Rock (as a genre).

>>53581986
this 1000 times over

Why do dorks think that rock "music" could ever be serious art? Is it just to make up for lacking the musical intelligence necessary to listen to actual art music, or is just standard autism?

>>53582003
That is quite literally what i was saying.

Even though 'Progressive Rock' is not s genre that describes sound. But i don't know enough about prog rock to have a real discussion about it.

>>53581986
All music is music
Some music is art
Some music is even more art than other music

>>53582002
Yes, but the thing is there's a Prog Rock genre (lets call it Symphonic to avoid confusion), and there's the Krautrock genre, but none of them are a sub-genre from each other.
Do you get what I mean?

>>53582003
I'm pretty sure that's what>>53581883 meant.

>>53582049
>Some music is art
>Some music is even more art than other music
this is why no one likes you or other trip-fags, how can something be "more art" than another thing?

>>53582043
I don't know, it's just that it makes no sense people are calling all the genres I mentioned above to be sub-genres from Progressive Rock.
Progressive Rock was never meant to be progressive btw.

>>53582016
What is art that Rock can't be considered one?

>>53582003
Right. But most people just refer to progressive rock the genre as prog. We know what you're thinking (Rush, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Gentle Giant, etc.) I still think there's considerable musical worth in even those artists.

>>53582078
To be honest, he's probably the best tripfag in this board (that's not saying much though).

>>53582049
You seem to have a skewed perception of what Prog Rock (the genre) is. Which is understandable considering the most popular and 'staple' bands of the genre. And how a lot of 'prog' bands shouldn't be classified as 'prog'.

I feel it's similar to that post-hardcore divide.

>>53582078
It really depends how you define art. As I see it, art is always evolving, reaching new boundaries, and because of this logic, "true" or "most art", is the most radical one.
Sorry, I know I worded it pretty bad.

>>53582085
Wait, what's your point?

>>53582113
Thanks (I guess?)

>>53582084
It was ment to be progressive, but the people who listened to it were ignorant of actually progressive music.
Frank Zappa commented on this in an interview once

>>53582116
No, that's not my point. There's a genre called Progressive Rock (Is it actually progressive or not, doesn't matter). Then, there are other progressive rock genres (Krautrock, Zeuhl, Avant-Prog, Canterbury, etc). Most people usually call them to be Progressive Rock sub-genres, even if those have nothing to do with it.

>>53582134
>As I see it, art is always evolving, reaching new boundaries, and because of this logic, "true" or "most art", is the most radical one.
>that non sequitur

>>53582157
It really wasn't, it was just another musical style, just like Punk, Psychedelic Rock, or whatever.
Agree with the second part of the first sentence btw.

>>53582186
Why don't they have anything to do with it?

>>53582200
Art = Change
More Art = More Change

Do you get it now?

>>53582231
They have nothing in common. Different influences, different styles, etc
Calling Krautrock a Prog Rock sub-genre is like saying Jazz Fusion is an Avant-Garde Jazz sub-genre

>>53582262
>They have nothing in common. Different influences, different styles, etc
Isn't that true for practically all prog bands too?

>>53582284
Krautrock bands have similar influences, and even influenced each other.
Same thing goes for Prog Rock.

>>53582186
But those subgenres were inspired by Zappa, if you're implying he's not progressive rock, you must be retarded.

>>53582262
I think most people bundle all of these genres together because they strife to be more "artful" than normal rock/pop music

>>53582348
Zappa had no influence on Canterbury, Prog Rock, and Zeuhl.
Frank Zappa was progressive, but was not Progressive Rock (with Progressive Rock I mean the genre that evolved from Crimson's Court album).

>>53582262
Just continuing with your personal definition of art; you said it was ever evolving. There is no logical corrolation between that fact and 'worth'. And even if there was, it would be practically impossible to measure.

Going to assume that you don't mean that art 'is evolving' or 'evolution itself', even though that's what it looked like in your green text, cause that is straight up retarded.

>>53582364
Strive*

>>53582314
You're confusing genre with scene.

>ITT: plebs who think rock music can be considered an art from when The Beatles exist

>>53582364
Yeah, I guess. But still, it's like saying there are three brothers, but instead of saying that each one of them descended from the same mother, they said that the big and the little brother descended from the middle one.

>>53582416
>One pop band somehow invalidates the entire rock music
>Especially considering how The Velvet Undergound, Captain Beefheart, The Kink's, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beach Boys exist

>>53582416

>>53582386
>Just continuing with your personal definition of art; you said it was ever evolving.
Correct
>There is no logical corrolation between that fact and 'worth'
It's not about worth, it's about one being mroe art than the other. Now, in terms of quality, that's another thing.

>Going to assume that you don't mean that art 'is evolving' or 'evolution itself'
Art is evolving all the time, why do you disagree?


>>53582414
How?

>>53582384

I get what you mean, but Genesis is aptly the genesis of the "symphonic" style. IIRC the term "progressive rock" started with Caravan.

>>53582497
For something to be more of something, it has to be given a value.

>>53582535
>but Genesis is aptly the genesis of the "symphonic" style
What do you mean?

>IIRC the term "progressive rock" started with Caravan.
Progressive as an adjective or as a genre?

>>53582536
And the value would be how much it differs from pre-existing art.

>>53582483
I was referencing that classic Scruffy thing, my friend

>>53582497
I don't disagree that art is evolving. I was saying that if your definition was that art IS evolution or the essence of evolution (which it wasn't), that would ridiculous. It would mean that art that wasn't pushing boundaries wasn't art.

That said, i think your 'definition' of art is retarded.

>>53582597
>art that wasn't pushing boundaries wasn't art.
That's sort of true though. There's nothing artistic about something that has already been done before.

>That said, i think your 'definition' of art is retarded.
It might be. I mean, it's not perfect, but it's close to what I actually think it is.

>>53582572
>And the value would be how much it differs from pre-existing art.
Which would be a value you added, not an implication of your definition of art.
And as i said, it would be practically impossible to measure.

>>53582659
No, because everything that once pushed boundaries will become common place and then not art.

Rock was only a legitimate form of art music when Southern blacks were playing it.

Some white British faggot playing a 90 minute guitar solo was never, and never will be, rock.

REMINDER

The "progressive" in "Progressive Rock" refers to the fact that the songs themselves progress (classical structure). It has nothing to do with progressing music as a whole.

>>53582741

>>53582748
Don't all songs progress in one form or another?

>>53582767
Worst bitch in no wave

>>53582793
I'll fuck her.

>>53581024

>Most prog bands are genuine cheesy trash though

ftfy

>>53582659
>There's nothing artistic about something that has already been done before.
By that logic, painting a canvas can never be artistic.

>>53582741

Do you think black people don't play guitar solos? Guitar wankery is a pox that transcends all racial boundaries.

>>53582671
>Definition
Art = Change
>Value
Change

It's not the perfect way of saying it, but I think it comes close.

>And as i said, it would be practically impossible to measure.
Of course not. Let's take for example a Square. It has 4 sides. Every other square other than the first one lacks artistic value. Now, someone decides to draw a Pentagon. This has more value because it differs from the first one. Then, there's a second attempt to draw and Hexagon, which is still more art than the Squares, but slightly less art than the Pentagon because it uses the same formula the Pentagon used (Add one more side). Eventually, someonce comes in with the radical idea of creating a Circle, which has a lot more artistic value than the Hexagon, Pentagon, and Square because of how radical and non-formulaic it is.
Square: 1 Point
Pentagon: 2 Points
Hexagon: 1.5 Points
Circle: 3 Points

Now, this could be standardized and get applied to music, and there you have it! A measure of artistic value.

I know this isn't perfect btw, but I think it's a really cool idea.

>>53582700
>No, because everything that once pushed boundaries will become common place and then not art.
Only if you look at thing from retrospective. The first one is the one that remains artistic.

>>53582836
But there are more elements for a painting than just "painting a canvas". What about the content? The style? The concept?
Do you get what I mean?

>>53582113
Soma is the best but no one notices him unless you're in a bc thread or he just randomly posts. He's nice, constructive, and makes pretty good music.

I am not promoting Soma

>>53582885
That is so fucking stupid. Everything can be measured if you use simplistic terms like that.
But how would you measure the value of Malevich and Dali, whose work was more artistic? If i paint a renaissance painting or even copy a renaissance painting, how would you value it? Would you ignore any philosophy behind it and not consider that this was made in 2015?
What about installations and confrontations?
Would cave paintings be the epitome of art, and everything after be in its
shadow?

>>53580973

Any decent essential prog charts around? Never really been too into it but I'd like to try

>>53582741
You tell 'em, northern blacks be damned.

>>53583012
There's a fucking prog album that's /mu/core.

Did you just skip all of that worthless, overrated garbage?

>>53582995
Most tripfags range from "dank memes, ebin fedora you suck I'm better" to "I'm a deep intellectual individual with my head up my filthy asshole" but there's a few cool ones.

>>53583048
Have you ever seen Soma? I've only really seen him a handful of times, and each time he was pretty cool

>>53582049
Everything is art you fucktard.

>>53582885
But the square was the biggest leap. It literally went from nothing to square, surely that would have way more points than just adding a stroke. How can the penta get more points from being derived from the square, whilst the hexagon less? Your system is logically flawed.

>>53583001
>But how would you measure the value of Malevich and Dali, whose work was more artistic?
I don't know which one of them is more artistic, but I know they were more artistic than a lot of their contemporaries. To say it some way, both of them could have a value of 10, while others would have lesser values.
My system is not perfect, but it works pretty well in some cases.

>Would cave paintings be the epitome of art, and everything after be in its shadow?
Of course not, because it has evolved since then. The first isn't always the most radical.

>>53583076
What is art according to you?

Not entirely related, but does anyone else list off posh "art prog" bands like Soft Machine, Birdsongs of the Mesozoic, Van der Graaf Generator, Can and others when they're asked to describe their taste to come off as patrician while still liking progressive rock, despite liking shit like the Moody Blues, Strawbs, and Genesis more

>>53583070
Nah, but he seems cool from what your telling me.

>>53582049
>Some music is art
confirmed for an unartistic hack

>>53583096
Anything that anyone can find aesthetically or representationally pleasing that is man made.

>>53583096
Your system is flow of consiousness tier
>My system is not perfect, but it works pretty well in some cases
You mean in cherrypicked cases, and even then it does't really work.

>>53583076
So, the number 14 is art? Sodomy is art? Indigestion is art?

>>53583116
I thought I was the only one, I always throw Birdsongs in my favorites even though I really dislike them

>>53583082
Yeah, but art didn't existed when there was "nothing". I think the birth should not be considered the biggest succes, anad just have a neutral value instead.

>How can the penta get more points from being derived from the square, whilst the hexagon less?
Because the Penta is Square + 1, while the Hexagon takes the same formula as the Penta. Pentagon is the one who got the original idea of adding an extra side. Hexa just copied his idea (but created something new anyways).
Not flawed, you just interpreted it wrong.

>>53583150
If the intention was to create art then yes all of those things are art

>>53583151
kek

>>53583141
>not just saying 'literally everything'
Way to almost limit yourself

>>53583116
nothing wrong with Strawbs, From the Witchwood is one of the best folk rock albums of all time

>>53583116
I don't care to be patrician.

>>53583170
Ok...
...
...
14!

Look guys, I can art now!

>>53583166
Wtf, but the penta did the exact same thing. He copied square's idea.
The only really radical and original idea was square, followed by circle.

>>53583125
What do you disagree with?

>>53583141
Is Bread art?
Is a flower art?
I think both are, and yes, everything can be art. But some art is more artistic than other art.

>>53583146
My system works when I want to measure change. Perfectly.

>>53583209
Congrats, so can literally everyone else in the world.

>>53583220
You don't have a system.

these dubs are art

>>53583141
>that is man made
You fucked up

>>53583212
No, you got it wrong, it's more like this.

>Neutral Art
Square
It has no artistic value, it just is, since there's no change (and no, going from nothing to something is not art, or at least not in this case)

>Positive Art
Pentagon
Why?
Because it introduces a new idea (Add a side to the square)
This "formula" is what makes the Penta artistic.

>Slightly Negative Art
Hexagon
Why?
Because it takes the same formula as the Penta (now it's not original), but applies it to the Penta so it doesn't become another Penta.

>Very Positive Art
Circle
Why?
Because it's radically different and has no formula.

Do you get it now?

>>53583209
I feel like people like this have an unrealistic idea of what art means. Putting it on a pedestal for no reason.

>>53583174
I don't consider natural things art - photographs or paintings of them are art though.

>>53583209
I seriously consider this post here a piece of art.

It is an excellent expression of this person's anger, frustration, and autism. If you look at its context, you realize this person lives a very unfulfilling life.

>>53583244
I do, I already explained it before.

>>53583141
>that is man made.
No

>find aesthetically or representationally pleasing
No

>Anything that anyone can
Yes

>>53583281
>or at least not in this case
Based on what, you not wanting to admit you're wrong?

>>53583227
Let me ask you this, do you have standards with which to judge art or is any given work just as valid as everything else (for an easy example would you consider a picasso to a kindergarten fridge drawing in artistic worth/merit?)

>>53583303
Way to stay close minded

>>53583322
Because it would only be considered art if there were already other art forms before this one, but to make this more simple, we are going to asume this is the only art form in existence.

Do you get it now?

>>53583340
Thank you

>>53580973
>implying metal can't be artistic

>>53583331
There's only one picasso, and he made radical art that was very different from pre-existing art, that's why he has high artistic value.
There are a lot of Kindergarten Fridge Drawings, and none of those are radically different to the pre-existing art, so they have low artistic value.

>>53583331
I appreciate art that is either aesthetical, interesting or philosophically fulfilling.
I do like picasso, of course.

And there's a lot of art i don't like, like overtly obscene art for the sake of obscenity, Scatalogical art etc. But i would never dismiss it as art.

>>53583393
I'm curious, how do you measure these differences in art?

>>53583433
See >>53582885
I hope it makes sense to you.

>>53583209
brb selling a screenshot of this post on ebay

>>53583348
But it was created from nothing. So it would have to be way more radical than anything created from derivation.

>>53583393
>>53583463
Your pseudo-intelligence is detrimental to musical debate.

I mean I'd tell you to stop but there's a daily quota of bullshit to fill on this board so continue your hastily thrown together analysis and systematization of art, which in case you've forgotten, is purely subjective. Butt you have a rebuttal to that anyway so fuck it.

>>53583468
It wasn't created from nothing, art started when we saw the Square.
If you are not satisfied, then teh answer is that the Square already existed in the nature, and it was human the one who shaped it into a Penta, Hexa, or Circle.

Happy now?

>>53583475
Nice argument
Everything is subjective anyways, so what's the point of discussing stuff?

>>53583516
>art started when we saw the Square
Then before we saw the square, there was no art. Surely there is nothing more artful than the very thing that created art, no?

>>53583535
Because we are a defunct species burdened with consciousness and a thirst for proving others wrong to validate our own bullshit perceptions?

That's my bullshit perception.

>>53583557
No, because art already existed in nature form. It wasn't created, it was discovered.

>>53583535
Because then there's actually things to discuss, as opposed to everything being objective. If every was objective there would be no arguing over anything

>>53583569
>and a thirst for proving others wrong to validate our own bullshit perceptions?
I disagree with this. I'm not interested in proving you wrong. I was telling you this because you seemed curious about this system (otherwise, I have no idea why you started talking to me).

Even then, that's your subjective point of view and we are both as right as each other c:

>>53583569
>>53583598
Actually yeah this guy's argument's better.
I still think consciousness is a burden though.

>>53583573
Then how is the pentagon derivative of the square? If the square wasn't created then it couldn't have followed any formula

>>53583598
Exactly, so why would someone use "it's subjective" as an argument?
I don't get why he's complaining, I'm just sharing my point of view.

>>53583645
He isn't arguing, he is objectively stating that art is subjective

>>53583633
The square doesn't have a formula. We just saw it had 4 sides, so we tried to make something similar but with an additional side instead.
A cat has 4 legs, not created by humans
Now, someone decides to create a cat with 5 legs.

What do you think?

>>53583679
Wow! I had no idea!
Thanks for letting me know!

Of course art is subjective, everything is, actually. But that doesn't stop me from having my own subjective views about what art is or not (the definition of art itself is subjective). So, the only answer to this is coming to an agreement.

>>53583645
Not complaining. Just wanted to talk about some nice sounding prog rock and come down from my amphetamine high, smoke a cigarette maybe, drink a bit. But instead it's everyone arguing with you for a condensed shit storm because, I don't know, I guess you said genres that may or mar not take influence/be derivative of aren't prog rock. Then there was some analogies thrown in there, a lot of arguments went nowhere as usual and it's all very...silly? Not the debate itself but just that we can't go one thread without it falling apart.

Maybe Im the pseudo-intelligent one here.

>>53583683
Your system becomes incredibly problematic to the point of uselessness when something with this many variables is involved.

I like a a lot of music.

>>53583424
Well we seem to be on about the same page then. I wouldn't go as far as to say everything is art though. At the very least make a clear distinction that it has to be intended as art. Even though ready made art and the likes strike me as incredibly lazy.

>>53582885
Call it elitist or whatever you want but I like this representation as a means of ranking genres/subgenres of music.

>>53583717
I'm actually enjoying the thread, it's something different to what we usually see on /mu/. Arguing is good, but only if both parts are open minded enough to try to understand each other's point of view and keep it civil.

>>53583739
My system is incredibly simple, lol

>>53583765
Music is pretty fun to listen to.

Not so much talk about.

>>53583766
I don't agree.
Genres are like ramifications from a tree. Everything that preced a genre is actually a sub-genre from it.
But I think my system is a good way of rating albums. But it should work as a Double Rating system. First one being Artsitic Value, and second one being emotional value (or musical quality, maybe).

>>53583816
I like both

>>53583314
And for responding you have kept lit the torch of art in this thread friend.
>>53583466
That's my post and you'll do no such thing without my expressed written consent.

>>53583816
>>53583843
I agree with that. I'll talk about music once in a while, but all the time you spend talking the talk you could be walking the walk, ya dig?

>>53583883
I can do both c;

>>53583883
Dope rhymes, brother

>>53583803
You have to be seriously autistic to count every thing a work of art does differently than a previous work. What exactly are you comparing that work to anyway? Are any similarities or differences weighed differently? The whole system seems really arbitrary, especially for a so-called "objective" definition of a given work of arts value. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts right now, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree

>>53582384
Zappa had influence on Soft Machine, the biggest band in Cantebury, numerous prog rock bands were influenced by him from Can (Krautrock), Henry Cow (Avant-Prog/Rio), and many other European progressive rock groups like early French progressive rock groups Red Noise and Komintern. And those groups in turn were hugely influential.

The progressive rock pioneered by Zappa is the one that spawned all the subgenres you're talking about. Your problem is that you don't understand two different musical movements can be referred to by the same name. It happens literally all the time, like how heavy metal was used to refer to both hard rock and Black Sabbath or how industrial was used to both refer to stuff made in industrial-based cities and stuff that implemented sounds of machinery and metallic percussion and then the more electronic-based stuff. Or how post-punk was used to refer to both the more standard pop style that was taking over and the highly experimental music that was becoming more popular in the wake of punk. Etc.

>>53583314
This nigga gets it.

>>53583896
So can I, but I'd rather listen than talk. Even when I'm with friends and we throw on an album or something I try my best to actively listen the entire time.
>>53583906
Thanks dogg, that was righteous of you.

>>53583907
Just use common sense. It's easy to tell when a band does something new or when they are copying someone else.
And I never talked about objectiveness.

>>53583936
Soft Machine had no Zappa influence. They already released their first album on 1968 and they had no similarities with already existing Zappa albums.
King Crimson had no Zappa influence too.

Agree with Can and Cow though.

Yes, I understand that Prog is being used as an actual genre and as an umbrella genre at the same time, but I still wanted to discuss about it.

>>53583936
I would like to agree with this if I saw some sort of testimonial evidence from these artists, because I too have wondered if the Mothers of Invention were in fact the first true progressive rock band.

>genres
>legitimate

>>53584036
They were the first experimental rock band, that's for sure (but The Monks are a serious contender).

>>53583983
I can talk, listen, and do both at the same time. Both activities are entertaining, so I don't get your point.

>>53583983
Always soul-sister, you know I'm always down to give you the 401 on your cool-cat vibe

>>53580973
>mfw people think this thread is real

>>53584048
Of course they are, since most genres have a single unifying predecesor.

>>53584012
Not the same anon, but Soft Machine show Zappa's influence from their second album, following their crossing paths. I suppose King Crimson may not have had a Zappa influence, but you never know. Either way, I would say that the Mothers of Invention meet the basic defining criteria of progressive rock and they had that style going since Absolutely Free was released in 1967.

>>53584048
>>53584048
>>53584048

>>53584012
>Soft Machine had no Zappa influence
Their second album was directly inspired by him you fucking retard. Please kill yourself or do some fact-checking next time. He's even the reason it's tracked as so many miniature tracks despite actually being two suites.

>>53584094
It's not real, it's subjective c;

>>53584115
They had no Zappa influence ob their first album at least (I'm talking about Soft Machine).

King Crimson had no Zappa influence, I'm sure of it. Their first album was just a combination of Nice's first album and Moodly Blues' DOFP (plus some surprise elements), but nothing from it had any similarities with Zappa.

>>53584127
I was talking about their debut album only, sorry. Haven't heard their second one yet.
But the thing is, Canterbury was a thing before Zappa influenced them (that's what we were arguing about).
No need to be rude.

>>53584060
I actually just stumbled across their name in the prog wikipedia page about an hour ago. Never heard of them before, they might be a little bit behind the Monks as first experimental band but I think we can agree the Mothers (at their most adventurous) went a good deal further musically than the Monks, and they were also superior in technical skill.

>>53584036
What do you mean? The testimonial evidence already exists, just look it up.

(Plus, if you listen to the music yourself, you can often hear the obvious influences in an artist's early music).

The hand claps in One More Red Nightmare are why prog is dead.

>>53584072
But do you talk while music is playing? If so, how do you absorb music that you are not intimately familiar with? It is a psychological fact that the human mind cannot consciously focus on two things at once.

Hi

So, it seems that you guys know a lot about Prog influences, so could anyone help me with this, please?
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/thread/S53547107#p53548186

>>53584171
Yeah, Mothers were the first truly experimental rock band.

>>53584208
I usually do it when listening to something for the first time, and try to let it sink in almost unconsciously.

>>53584170
Their first album is not the one people think of when they say "Soft Machine". I'm sorry I assumed someone who was trying to look important had actually heard the music being discussed.

And I never mentioned King Crimson, I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. The progressive rock genres we're talking about already were all taking off before King Crimson came into the picture, not after. There's dozens of essential prog rock albums that were released in 1969, Crimson King was released in October.

>>53584149
Not having known them personally, I don't think you have the authority to say you are positively sure that there is zero chance Frank Zappa (who toured Europe before ITCOTCK was released) had at least a small stylistic influence on King Crimson's music. It's like you're implying that they weren't even aware of The Mothers. It's very possible that they were familiar with and maybe even inspired by them to some extent, you don't know for sure. To say you are positive one way or the other is a strong statement and nothing more.

>>53584267
>Their first album is not the one people think of when they say "Soft Machine". I'm sorry I assumed someone who was trying to look important had actually heard the music being discussed.
See >>53583936
He said Zappa influenced Canterbury, which is not true. Canterbury was already a thing before he influenced other Canterbury bands.

>And I never mentioned King Crimson, I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. The progressive rock genres we're talking about already were all taking off before King Crimson came into the picture, not after. There's dozens of essential prog rock albums that were released in 1969, Crimson King was released in October.
Yes, that was my main argument at the beginning of the thread.

>>53584270
Of course, I can't really be sure, but if it's true that The Mothers influenced King Crimson's first album, please tell me where exactly. If their influence can't be heard, I don't think it should be considered a real influence and instead should be considered an inspiration.

>>53584231
I don't know man, for pop-structured music I can do that, but if I'm listening to certain jazz or prog or classical (especially modern/atonal stuff) I find it very hard to absorb unconsciously on account of the sheer complexity.

>>53584354
But it helps to make you more familiar with the recording. At least some albums are pleasurable to listen to this way (especially Jazz-Rock albums).

>>53584354
There some stuff that are meant to be background music (eg. Ambient ).

>>53584346
I think at the very least the argument can be posited that the fusion stylings of 21st century schizoid man bear a resemblance to fusion sensibilities of The Mothers, particularly the sped up 6/8 section in the middle.

>>53584313
Zappa having a significant influence on the most influential band in Canterbury, very much means he had an influence on Canterbury. Jesus Christ, do you just lack reading comprehension? Influencing something doesn't mean you created it. Canterbury is a scene, not a genre, the music they were making when it started is not the same as the music they are now remembered for.

>>53584380
I guess I can't argue with that, I've listened to jazz-rock that way before. Steely Dan's Aja is one that comes to mind.

>>53584412
Yeah, I suppose that should be included.

>>53584450
>Zappa having a significant influence on the most influential band in Canterbury, very much means he had an influence on Canterbury. Jesus Christ, do you just lack reading comprehension?
>Canterbury was already a thing before he influenced other Canterbury bands.
No, you lack reading comprehension.
I said Zappa had an influence on Canterbury, but when Canterbury was already a thing. So, Zappa wasn't the predecessor of the Canterbury Scene as the other guy was saying some posts above.

>Influencing something doesn't mean you created it.
I know, but the other guy was saying Zappa influenced Canterbury in their formation, that because of Zappa Canterbury became a thing.

>Canterbury is a scene, not a genre
It's definitely a genre with some clear defining elements and similar influences (with every Canterbury band being influenced by either Soft Machine or Caravan).

This is my favorite thread on /mu/ right now.

On a side note, do you guys play any instruments? If so, do you make music and is it inspired by progressive rock in any way?

>>53584434
Not in the slightest. 21st has more thing in common with Nice (a very bizarre and terrific version of Nice), than anything The Mother did at the time.

>>53584462
I really like The Muffins' Manna/Mirage for this purpose. Really pleasurable with some atonalities thrown here and there.

>>53584525
I play Flute, Piano, and I'm starting to learn Guitar on my own.
Don't make music yet.

>>53584545
While I will admit, as far as disparities go, King Crimson definitely lacks the rhythm and blues roots of the Mothers. Nevertheless I still think it's entirely possible (given that The Mothers toured England at least a year prior to ITCOTCK's release) that, at the very least, 21st century schizoid man was inspired by the Mothers' early fusion jams. Compare for yourselves people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4eRpwRJgzk&t=0m8s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4eRpwRJgzk&t=1m20s

>>53584678
With what Mothers piece should I compare this one?
As I see it, 21st was inspired by Nice's first album, and something else that I have no idea what it is, probably just Crimson doing something never done before.
But I don't see any similarities with Zappa.

>>53584564
>Flute & piano
What style(s)?

I play guitar primarily (about six years total, with two years of jazz and one of classical, but I also added piano/keyboards to that about a year and a half ago (though I'm far less proficient). I also dabble with drums and electric bass.

>>53584525
guitar, bass, drums, vocals, clarinet

yes I make music

Influenced by prog? Not exactly. I like to do little change-ups and whatnot in songs that you wouldn't necessarily expect, but there's not nearly enough wank or pretension about it for me to be prog influenced

>>53584754
My mistake, I copied the same link by accident. This is what I suggested you compare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb1oAmRhKLE&t=0m8s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4eRpwRJgzk&t=1m20s

>>53584774
Just beginner stuff. Stopped playing piano ~2-3 years ago and just started playing again some days ago.

>>53584804
Oh, I guess the specific time wasn't carried over with the link, but I tried to set it up to have Mothers track start at 8 seconds and the KC at 1:20

>>53584804
Oh, now THAT makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I can see the similarities. I should listen to the whole album again and compare it, but yeah, this one makes sense.

>>53580973 (OP) #
nice meme

>>53584837
Well, I tried to find the track to best suit my case off that album, there's also some parody rock/R&B songs and a bit of modern classical influence, as was typical in their early albums.

>>53581803
>Avant-prog
>not subgenre of prog rock

pls

>>53581768
Art music is as far from art as art can get.