Dire Straits: Prog-Related? YES.

I do consider them Prog-Related, specially the so acclaimed here in PA, Love Over Gold, while the other 2 I have, Brothers in Arms and On Every Street do have their slight leanings.

Though, I, and really none of you, are the ones who choose wheter or not they're added, it's been discussed many times, and the admins have said NO, so...

lucas wrote: Who's next : Police ? (well, Sting has sung for Ebehard Schöner so he is prog-related, and other members were also involved in prog projects...) Abba ? (listen to 'visitors')

*facepalm, and, for further emphasis, I can hardly believe how stupid your implied comparison was*

Simply put, the reason Dire Straits should be on here is that album. Not that they had artsy leanings elsewhere (they did, but apart from a few gems like Planet Of New Orleans, certainly nothing else as progressive). I think it's very difficult to say that Love Over Gold isn't a progressive rock album (in the same way that Script For A Jester's Tear is a progressive rock album... sure, it's not Yes, it's not as obtuse as Crimson, but it's in a progressive rock vein). If the site wants to be a complete progressive rock resource, it needs that album, and with the current system, that means the rest of the albums would get in, too.

Now, yes, that album is the only really progressive one Dire Straits ever did, but I think it'd take wilful effort to say that isn't an album that, if produced by any artist who wasn't subsequently extremely commercially successful with (quality) artsy pop/rock material, noone at all would have a problem including here.

So, basically, I think folk in general are trying to use Dire Straits to 'draw a line' in the addition process, and I think the whole must-avoid-pop-albums-on-the-database-brrrrr reflex is overcoming what the site's stated intent, to be the best progressive rock resource, is. Frankly, it seems pretty daft and inconsistent with what I've heard stated as site policy (one progressive album = grounds for inclusion) that a band that have put out a clearly progressive rock album are being constantly rejected here for the basic reason that their pop career is better known.

Sorry about the mild rant, this is probably the one area in which I completely disagree with the site's actions.


Edited by TGM: Orb - May 08 2009 at 18:14

This is really getting childish now.

Dire Straits?

What next, Bruce Springsteen. Knopfler's nearer to Bruce Springsteen than he is Prog.

Jester indeed.

^to add a band, the band doesn't need to have connection with Prog, which apparently you don't know by the examples you're giving and gave....
To add band, supposedly, you just need 1 prog album, which in many people's opinion, Love Over Gold is a full blown Progressive Rock record, while like Rob said very well, maybe not in the heights of King Crimson, nor Yes, etc, but it's Prog nonetheless.

Of course this decision is held by the Admin Team, so I will really rest my case for now.

cacho wrote: ^to add a band, the band doesn't need to have connection with Prog, which apparently you don't know by the examples you're giving and gave.... To add band, supposedly, you just need 1 prog album, which in many people's opinion, Love Over Gold is a full blown Progressive Rock record, while like Rob said very well, maybe not in the heights of King Crimson, nor Yes, etc, but it's Prog nonetheless. Of course this decision is held by the Admin Team, so I will really rest my case for now.

Warning:  long post.

Hmm, I thought there was thing lately that the whole collab section didn't want to deal with prog related additions for ages because things were getting out of hand.
It seems these prog related suggestions cause a butt load of argument, time better spent finding an actual prog band that we know  can be cleared for addition ASAP and get a  bio done and add it.
Seriously, think about it people.
Collabs could be arguing about this with the OP for the next 10 pages, but in that time I reckon several biographies for an actual prog band could be done.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Tony R wrote: This is really getting childish now. Dire Straits? What next, Bruce Springsteen. Knopfler's nearer to Bruce Springsteen than he is Prog. Jester indeed.   Have to agree 100% with you Tony.   Dire Straits has a lot of POP, Blues Based Rock, some country like music and a lot of mainstream, I have all their albums, becaue I love the band, but that means nothing, the argument:   "In my iTunes playlist of "Favorite Progressive Rock" (a playlist of studio recordings, which admittedly includes a lot of Prog-Related stuff), out of 639 songs (and growing), 14 are Dire Straits songs.  From a band that only made 6 studio albums and a guy who listens to lots of Progressive Rock, that's saying something."     Is simply empty, i listen mostly prog, but i have a lot of Fleetwood mac (Not even Peter Green, talking about Stevie Nicks & Lindsay Buckingham, more than two albums), Meatloaf (two albums), and even a track of Madonna...This doesn't mean anything, only that I like other genres.   Now Cacho, if it's true that to add a band, the band doesn't need to have connection with Prog, we better change the name of he site to Whateverthememberswant.com because this would cease to be a Prog site.   Iván

Ivan, you're really intentionally misrepresenting/quoting out of context what Pablo was saying there.

Cacho wrote: ^to add a band, the band doesn't need to have connection with Prog, which apparently you don't know by the examples you're giving and gave.... To add band, supposedly, you just need 1 prog album, which in many people's opinion, Love Over Gold is a full blown Progressive Rock record, while like Rob said very well, maybe not in the heights of King Crimson, nor Yes, etc, but it's Prog nonetheless.

What he was trying to say, quite clearly, is that a vague/solid 'connection' or 'relation' with prog music (as exhibited by David Bowie or David Gilmour) is not necessary if you've released one prog album.

Love Over Gold, if it had been the last thing the band had released, would be considered something of a lost prog gem, and the band would probably be kicking around in crossover or PR or neo-prog or something like that.

Now, about Love Over Gold

site definition wrote: The main characteristics of Symphonic are the ones that defined all Progressive Rock: (There's nothing 100% new under the sun) which among others are: Mixture of elements from different genres. Complex time signatures. Lush keyboards. Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues. Non commercial approach Longer format of songs

Well, lush keyboards are certainly in there, with a lot of gorgeous piano and organ (and synthethiser). It's even got vibes + marimba on a couple of songs). The non-commercial approach is pretty clear on this one. Longer format of songs, definitely. Exploratory lyrics, I think so. The snide, witty take on British industrial sloth, a full-on concept song, a couple. Time signatures, I don't know (counting idiocy), but I don't think anyone'd say that time signatures are an absolute must-have in prog (Floyd, at least, would suggest not).

Love Over Gold:  well yes Telegraph Road is prog, pure and simple.  But Knopfler's writing more soundtracks.  Better song on the album is Industrial Disease.  Which in fact brings up the point, if somehow DS is included in PA, then you'd better include that Bob Dylan guy.

Well, to be fair, Pink Floyd and Goblin, for instance, were both involved with soundtracks at some points, and, with the whole classical influence into soundtracks in general, that could surely qualify as one of the mixture of elements thing the above definition's on about. Yes, I can see where you're coming from (and a very well-thought-out post, as well ), but I think that picturesque is maybe a better word than soundtrack - they're song-stories with a movie feel.

To expand on that, there's the classical-sounding guitar on the title track, a folk feel to a couple of the songs (It Never Rains in particular), one unusual rocker, some jazzy tinglings throughout, a combination of improv. (the jam at the end of Telegraph Road, for instance) and clearly prepared music and so on. There are a lot of mood changes done in a fashion I haven't really seen before.

As I said, it's not a seminal prog album in the way that Close To The Edge or Pawn Hearts, but I think it's certainly along the lines of the other progressive rock released around '82.

TonyR wrote: This is really getting childish now. Dire Straits? What next, Bruce Springsteen. Knopfler's nearer to Bruce Springsteen than he is Prog.

Edited for politeness.

I see two reasonable options here:
1) Ignore the thread, don't bother reading the arguments, don't (effectively) insult people who've thought about it when you obviously haven't.
2) Go to the thread, read the arguments for the suggestion, and comment on them intelligently.

I was joking when I wrote that the next band to consider for addition in PA will be Police. I simply recalled that the only connection they have with prog is to find in the previous bands of its members. Same with Dire Straits.

Well, not exactly (sorry for responding so aggressively to that post, btw, I was a bit out of order). Love Over Gold is more than connected with prog. I've never seen anyone say Telegraph Road isn't prog, and I think that quite a number of folks agree that the album is, essentially, a progressive rock album. It's not just a tenuous connection.

...

I appreciate the argument that time would be better spent adding new obvious and uncontroversial material than bands which take a lot of debate to push through to categories like prog-related (which not a lot of folks care about that much, anyway). What I find difficult to appreciate is that bands like Metallica had a thread in the collab zone discussing whether their new album was 'prog enough' to merit their inclusion, while a band with a distinctly progressive album is continually dismissed out of hand for, basically, their later rock success.


Edited by TGM: Orb - May 09 2009 at 15:42

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Now Cacho, if it's true that to add a band, the band doesn't need to have connection with Prog, we better change the name of he site to Whateverthememberswant.com because this would cease to be a Prog site.