Talk:Progressive rock/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Progressive rock. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Muse
This has probably been discussed before, but why isn't Muse mentioned? Bliss fulfills the criterias of progressiveness to a certain degree (minor key, the arpeggiated synth run, a symphonic feel, and - importantly - an attempt to reach towards musical grandeur/sublimity). Given their enormous mainstream popularity, I think they should be mentioned here despite not being clear-cut prog. Forgive me if this discussion has been exhausted before. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Their "progness" would have to be reliably sourced by a site like Allmusic or Rolling Stone. If so, they could have a mention. --Rodhullandemu 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence of Allmusic's Muse biography is: "Muse's fusion of progressive rock, electronica, and Radiohead-influenced experimentation is crafted by guitarist/vocalist Matthew Bellamy, bassist Chris Wolstenholme, and drummer Dominic Howard". Also, from Rolling Stone's review of Absolution: "So give Muse, from the English town of Teignmouth, some credit for adopting Radiohead's bombastic Bends approach and adding prog-rock-style instrumental virtuosity". Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't see a problem there. --Rodhullandemu 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence of Allmusic's Muse biography is: "Muse's fusion of progressive rock, electronica, and Radiohead-influenced experimentation is crafted by guitarist/vocalist Matthew Bellamy, bassist Chris Wolstenholme, and drummer Dominic Howard". Also, from Rolling Stone's review of Absolution: "So give Muse, from the English town of Teignmouth, some credit for adopting Radiohead's bombastic Bends approach and adding prog-rock-style instrumental virtuosity". Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Gatekeepers
This article needs a massive overhaul. Whenever I have made slight edits they've been immediately removed by "gatekeepers", furthering the unfair stereotype of fans of the genre - essentially having nothing else to do but watch this article and play D&D. Many artists could be considered "progressive", my attempts were to define what made certain artists distant and elitist and why Punk Rock in particular attracted a new audience that wanted music that addressed real-world issues instead of elves and wizards. The author bemoans of how the decline of popularity of Progressive Rock was due to a commercialization in music,(The Ramones were anything but commercial in the late 1970's) but then raves about the enormous sales of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in the next paragraph - make up your mind. It's not worth trying to edit this article, at least until these guys get girlfriends. Anyhow, I'm not trying to be insulting and I'm sorry if it's taken that way, it's just a frustrating forum in general. Proclivities (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
List of bands in the intro
So the list in the intro is a list of major early prog bands, and I understand that. But is this really appropriate for the intro? Shouldn't this be in the history section, with the list in the intro covering bands from all eras? --NE2 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)