Joni Mitchell for Fusion or Crossover

sl75 wrote: If it's the general feeling that the site has erred on the side of being too inclusive in the past, the correct solution would be to do a big cull. Otherwise, your forums are going to be forever jammed with people arguing that if X is here, why not Y?

Edited by Saperlipopette! - October 06 2016 at 03:48

lazland wrote: I refer the honourable gentleman to his last post of 21 April 2013, in which he expressed regret at reopening this thread.

I guess I thought this time around there might be some reasoned discussion with intelligent use of musical examples. Silly me, I should have known I'd get canine anatomy instead.

I ultimately don't care if Joni is here or not, I've got plenty of other places to celebrate her music, and other artists I can think of whose exclusion here seems more shocking to me. It's more trying to understand what definitions are being applied. Both times I've come to this thread, it's because of finding another artist on here whose music is similar to (at least one period of) Joni, and not to my ears any more Prog-like, and wondering why X is accepted but Y is not. (This time the case in point in Shelagh McDonald, who I've just begun to love, but whose apparently easy acceptance here as prog-folk genuinely perplexes me when the comparisons I hear are mostly Joni, mixed with a bit of Judy Collins, Nick Drake and Sandy Denny/Fotheringay - nothing like Spirogyra or Trees. What am I missing?)

lazland wrote: She is, though, as prog folk as my dog's anus.

sl75 wrote: Noting that Shelagh McDonald (who was heavily influenced by early Joni) is here, can someone explain to me what qualities make Shelah McDonald a prog folk artist, and how those qualities are absent from Joni's music?

I refer the honourable gentleman to his last post of 21 April 2013, in which he expressed regret at reopening this thread.

In particular, he might wish to reacquaint himself with the meaning of Groundhog Day.

However, to answer the question, it is because the specialists on the site do not regard her as being so. I love Joni Mitchell's music, and have a fair bit of it. She is, though, as prog folk as my dog's anus. I love my dog very much as well, but prog she ain't.

I would drop this.

^ 

No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is.

Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote: Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: Then I only wonder why Pentangle and Bert Jansch are here.  While you're at it, wonder why Fairport Convention and Fotheringgay (and Steeleye Span to a lesser extent) are in Prog Related then perhaps you'll get some measure of where the line between Prog-Folk and Folk-Rock lies. Actualy, that's the scandal that Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span are not in Prog Folk section. No it isn't. Oh yes, it really is.. Same with Vangelis who is in PR section with The Who and Queen

No, it isn't.

Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: Then I only wonder why Pentangle and Bert Jansch are here.  While you're at it, wonder why Fairport Convention and Fotheringgay (and Steeleye Span to a lesser extent) are in Prog Related then perhaps you'll get some measure of where the line between Prog-Folk and Folk-Rock lies. Actualy, that's the scandal that Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span are not in Prog Folk section.

No it isn't.

Dean wrote: ^ Steely Dan is in Jazz-Rock/Fusion, not Crossover.   Folk-Jazz is not Jazz-Rock/Fusion (just as Jazz-Pop is not Jazz-Rock/Fusion) and it isn't Prog-Folk (just as Folk-Rock is not Prog-Folk). The addition of Mitchell into any Prog subgenre would be stretching the definitions of those genres beyond breaking-point. There is a line past which being inclusive becomes too inclusive. Mitchell is way beyond that line.

Dean wrote: ^ Steely Dan is in Jazz-Rock/Fusion, not Crossover.   Folk-Jazz is not Jazz-Rock/Fusion (just as Jazz-Pop is not Jazz-Rock/Fusion) and it isn't Prog-Folk (just as Folk-Rock is not Prog-Folk). The addition of Mitchell into any Prog subgenre would be stretching the definitions of those genres beyond breaking-point. There is a line past which being inclusive becomes too inclusive. Mitchell is way beyond that line.

In my opinion, we've crossed that line many times.  That doesn't make it right to do it again.

lazland wrote: chopper wrote: sl75 wrote: May not make music that most people would call 'prog', but absolutely a progressive artist in the broadest sense of the word. Yes, but progressive does not mean the same as "prog". Yes it does. Prog is short for progressive, or it certainly used to be when I was at school, and listened to the stuff in the old days.