Jump to content

Fight Club: The Genre Discussion Thread


manxmuser
 Share

Recommended Posts

Muse are a pop rock band with some progressive tendencies.

 

It's the other way around. Even though their latests outputs (not even all of them) are poppier, if you consider their whole discography, pop songs are way in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the other way around. Even though their latests outputs (not even all of them) are poppier, if you consider their whole discography, pop songs are way in the minority.

 

Most of Showbiz and Abso are far closer to the pop end of the spectrum than the prog. OoS is really the only album where prog dominates.

 

Actually I suppose about half of TR is prog as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genre doesn't mean shit respective to whether something feels like it had quality writing or was slapped together.

 

And lol at song structure being relative to genre like structure of a song makes it pop? 99% of rock songs or songs in general for that matter are verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge chorus-chorus-chorus.

 

Point is Muse used to sound like a pretty original rock band back in the day. Now they do a lot of pop cliches to seem contemporary and fit in on the radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Genre doesn't mean shit respective to whether something feels like it had quality writing or was slapped together.

 

And lol at song structure being relative to genre like structure of a song makes it pop? 99% of rock songs or songs in general for that matter are verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge chorus-chorus-chorus.

 

Point is Muse used to sound like a pretty original rock band back in the day. Now they do a lot of pop cliches to seem contemporary and fit in on the radio.

 

Most bands leave their hard rock origins behind as there careers blossom. I guess record execs tell them, you wanna make money, then you have to become more mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock still lives on through many of these other genres though especially as the people that grew up with the 00s alternative era are now becoming the new big names.

 

I also wouldn't call the genre dying. It feels like saying Bill Gates is becoming poor now that he's not the richest person anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most bands leave their hard rock origins behind as there careers blossom. I guess record execs tell them, you wanna make money, then you have to become more mainstream.

 

Uhm, I don't really think they've ever been forced to "become mainstream", beside themselves.

By reading, listening and watching their interviews throughout their carrier I really feel this current "poppish" phase it's always been their own doing at 99.9%, which makes them more accountable for eventual duds. Or, more specifically, Matt's and Dom's at least. :chuckle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how the term ‘pop’ offends people when it’s levelled at ‘their’ band.

 

Get over yourselves you mawkish cunts. Enjoy the songs you enjoy, don’t listen to those you don’t, realise Muse are a (very) minor footnote in the great pantheon of music.

 

Go listen to Dead Star, Muscle Museum, Take A Bow, Dead Inside and Map and remember Muse have always been consistently brilliant and shit in equal measures.

 

Best post ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muse are always given this 'progressive' label as if to elevate them above typical rock, alternative rock and pop. Structurally CE is the only song I can really say is progressive to me...well, the only good one. The Globalist is probably progressive too, I dunno.

 

I think the 'progressive' thing has persisted mostly from Muse being unafraid of writing songs about conspiracy, apocalypse, atheism, etc. - more esoteric and highbrow topics than a lot of rock tackles. But the examination of those topics is always surface level; any deep examination or storytelling is sacrificed for the sake of brevity and accessibility. They write pop and rock songs with occasionally eccentric instrumentation, and showy but not overly technical musical ability on display.

 

And Muse have just got away with it and get called progressive to this day. It's genius really. They got to be a catchy pop band and an edgy progressive one at the same time. What a steal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most bands leave their hard rock origins behind as there careers blossom. I guess record execs tell them, you wanna make money, then you have to become more mainstream.

 

I'm trying to think of some popular and successful contemporary (hard)rock bands that solidly stuck to rock throughout their blossoming mainstream careers. I can only think of Foo Fighters, really. And maybe Metallica, who have done some crappy experiments and changed their sound a few times, but stuck to rock throughout.

 

I'm sure there must be more, but I can't think of them right now.

 

Plenty of others have stuck to their genre but lost their mainstream success, quit being a band, or have had a consistent sizable following without ever really becoming mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muse are always given this 'progressive' label as if to elevate them above typical rock, alternative rock and pop. Structurally CE is the only song I can really say is progressive to me...well, the only good one. The Globalist is probably progressive too, I dunno.

 

I think the 'progressive' thing has persisted mostly from Muse being unafraid of writing songs about conspiracy, apocalypse, atheism, etc. - more esoteric and highbrow topics than a lot of rock tackles. But the examination of those topics is always surface level; any deep examination or storytelling is sacrificed for the sake of brevity and accessibility. They write pop and rock songs with occasionally eccentric instrumentation, and showy but not overly technical musical ability on display.

 

And Muse have just got away with it and get called progressive to this day. It's genius really. They got to be a catchy pop band and an edgy progressive one at the same time. What a steal!

 

 

It’d be a steal if either audience fully accepted them, lol. Prog is more than song structure and lyrical themes though. Odd instrumentation and influences from disparate styles of music are just as (if not more) important to the genre. Matt’s frequent use of romantic and classical themes and chord progressions in his songs certainly give them a bit more prog cred than your average pop rock song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of some popular and successful contemporary (hard)rock bands that solidly stuck to rock throughout their blossoming mainstream careers. I can only think of Foo Fighters, really. And maybe Metallica, who have done some crappy experiments and changed their sound a few times, but stuck to rock throughout.

 

I'm sure there must be more, but I can't think of them right now.

 

Plenty of others have stuck to their genre but lost their mainstream success, quit being a band, or have had a consistent sizable following without ever really becoming mainstream.

 

If we're talking about mantained popularity, then I agree about considering them still contemporary as of now, but what about their beginnings? Metallica have more than 30 years on their backs now, FF 20 and counting, too, just like Muse.

 

Thus, beside them, I'm afraid there are none among the ones that emerged in 2000s.

It’d be a steal if either audience fully accepted them, lol. Prog is more than song structure and lyrical themes though. Odd instrumentation and influences from disparate styles of music are just as (if not more) important to the genre. Matt’s frequent use of romantic and classical themes and chord progressions in his songs certainly give them a bit more prog cred than your average pop rock song.

 

That's their beauty to us, in fact. They're quite melodical and poppy at heart, but you can't really classify them in a single genre beside an umbrella-term like alt-rock, or pop rock.

Edited by MartianSpaghettiRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking about mantained popularity, then I agree about considering them still contemporary as of now, but what about their beginnings? Metallica have more than 30 years on their backs now, FF 20 and counting, too, just like Muse.

 

Thus, beside them, I'm afraid there are none among the ones that emerged in 2000s.

 

 

Yes, I tried very hard to think of any, but couldn't.

 

QOTSA, maybe? I know they started in the 90s, but their popularity didn't start until the 2000s. Are they still mainstream popular though? I must admit I haven't heard any of their newer albums, so I don't even know if they stuck to rock. They could be making deep house now for all I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I tried very hard to think of any, but couldn't.

 

QOTSA, maybe? I know they started in the 90s, but their popularity didn't start until the 2000s. Are they still mainstream popular though? I must admit I haven't heard any of their newer albums, so I don't even know if they stuck to rock. They could be making deep house now for all I know.

 

Oh, shit, you're right, I forgot about them!

Yes, they're still relevant after all, and they've gone a bit softer than before. But not too much, mind that: they still rock.

Like Clockwork (2013) and Villains (2017) are two really good albums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuff on BH&R has a lot of sounds similar to progressive rock even if the music itself doesn't really meet the criteria. Shallow or not it's there.

 

I'd say their "proggiest" album to date is TR, instead. I hear a lot of Pink Floyd-ish and 80s prog sounds in there, and there's also that monster called Exogenesis Symphony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...