Comments on: Landfill Prog

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:18:45 +0000

The best bands always manage to transcend their influences, and do something creative with those influences. The worst bands simply remind you of how much better their influences were than they are.

And the trouble with Landfill Indie is that all the bands fell into the second category; they sounded like third-rate retreads of The Kinks or The Jam, without a single creative idea of their own.

By: PaulE

PaulE — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:11:14 +0000

A few thoughts …
Some people hear “influences” and immediately issue the “derivative” condemnation. Who knows how they manage to find any music to listen to. It all has influences.

It seemed that Indie was doomed to a rapid burnout because so many commentators were determined to use “new” as a synonym for “good” – a recipe for a revolving door. No wonder we heard so much landfill.

If people do want to split Prog from Progressive then I think the Prog section will still contain plenty that is good (as well as bad, as you described). And Sturgeon still holds, so both sections have the obligatory 90% tripe!

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:24:57 +0000

Some people claim “prog” (Bands that sound like the progressive rock bands from the 70s) and “progressive” (bands that are trying to do something new and original in the spirit of the progressive rock of the 70s) are two separate things. But I don’t buy that argument, because in practice it’s near impossible to state which bands fall into which genre. So “Prog” just becomes the dumping ground for bands whose music is formulaic and derivative. Which is why I call phooey on the division.

By: Chuk

Chuk — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:20:15 +0000

Oh my god — “prog” is not just short for “progressive” but the two actually cover different genres?