Steely Dan

Tony R wrote: ***Hint time*** The Admins and Site Owner would have certain reservations about a band that had been rejected many,many times suddenly being approved. Art Rock was split up to make it more manageable not to open the floodgates. There is a difference between having an inclusive addition policy and an "anything goes" policy. There is no problem with discussing these things but the answer has been a resounding no in the past, so what has changed in Steely Dan's music since the last "no"? Certainly our perception of Prog hasnt changed and members can be assured that only Prog Rock bands will be added.

hmm...hahahhahah

*confrontation time*

just who has rejected them.... what team?... the admins for PR?


Edited by micky - September 26 2007 at 17:31

this brings up a larger question I was too tired to bring up last night... this whole notion of

jazz rock and fusion..  and PA's.  Will touch on this later.. . time to grab a bite.

see my PM  

One thing I regularly wrestle with is that we all tend to judge bands/artists by their catalogue of releases and our interpretation of them down the years, rather than equally important issues for bands that are still playing or touring, for example, live performance. I'm not saying live performance is more important, but it is a factor, I believe, to be taken into account in the assessment of the music of any band as may be the releases of the 70s or whenever.

I've contributed a number of posts, for what they are worth, about people posting opinions about bands as if they don't exist anymore. Examples that come to mind are with Jethro Tull who I saw over a year ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. People talk about them as if what they are doing now does not matter or as if they simply don't exist any more - but an incarnation of them does, right now.

Absolute live performance [as opposed to live performance with the assistance of effects like backing tracks, for instance - thanks Brit and others], is for me what it's all about. For those of us who have played in bands, this is where it all starts, in cramped bedrooms, living rooms, garages, old school or church halls or whatever. It never starts in recording studios. Live performance is the start of any bands exposure and is their bread and butter.

So, of course, we have studio produced albums with all the smoke, whistles and mirrors the studio brings, we have live albums which are inevitably more raw and exposed, we now have dvds, online takes and downloads etc. etc. and we have live performance - the 'nitty gritty', the heart and soul of all bands.

As far as SD is concerned, recently seeing them and hearing them ,their musicianship, their relaxed approach, but perhaps ,more importantly, the live arrangement of these well hewn tunes and the variation this brings , helped to make my mind up . We should not discount what existing bands are doing NOW, not only in the studio but live, when assessing where they fit in the whole scheme of things.

This is essentially a world tour for SD. They have, as all touring bands do on any larger scale tour, invested so much time, money and energy into getting their music out there and their slant on it, their interpretation [as it is theirs to interpret]. It's a shame more of us can't listen and hear the message. Clearly, not everybody gets the chance to see bands live, and this remains a problem.

But for those of us who assume some responsibility in assessing bands and music [ other than by contributing to a forum like this],we owe it to ourselves, our readers or listeners, and to the world of music , as a whole , to explore such things, inform ourselves and be as thorough as we reasonably can, in our assessments.

Such things may influence us to change our minds or, perhaps , more importantly, better inform us to help us make a valid decision.

As far as SD is concerned, next time I'll see if I can get a spangled leather poncho, not just an Aja T- shirt, for chrissake.

^^ I understand where you are coming from as I am a fairly vocal supporter of live performances myself (and not just listenning to live albums). But the PA is an archive of the recorded works, not of the artist themselves - we rate & review the albums, not the groups. Also, not everyone can get the opportunity to see a band play live, yet we can all buy the CD.

Edited by darqdean - September 26 2007 at 20:28

Thanks, Darq. I guess I'm talking about 'overall' assessment. I have to confess I don't know the criteria specifically used for considering admissions and I should have a look. I also don't get too concerned about bands who are admitted and those who aren't. Those involved in the decision making do a wonderful job, but they are inevitably like football or sports referees. They can never get it right in everyone's eyes despite their best endeavours.

The bottom line here is, to take up Micky's point again, in the case of SD, so many of us love 'em anyway . On a personal level, I can now see very good reasons for their inclusion, but if it doesn't happen, I won't be taking my bat and ball and going home .

I also support Bela Fleck and the 'tones. That's another story, but the same applies from my point of view if they remain on the outer, as it were.

TO TONY R:
There's no argument from me about the prog elements, or lack thereof, in the bands you've mentioned, however, as jazz/rock fusion is a valid genre, I have been able to satisfy myself anyway, that Steely Dan could qualify. Their recent live performance helped me down that path.

I do not, however, like to be misquoted or blatantly misinterpreted when I have been careful in my choice of words in expressing my views. Please re-read the first paragraph of the post you have highlighted. I specifically say that live performance is not more important than a bands albums. I simply propose that it is another 'factor' to be taken into account.

A summary of the logic of the argument as you have stated in these terms - 'ignore the studio albums, go out and hear them live' is either,
     
1. not my argument OR
2. an ill informed or hasty misconception of it.

Frankly, I would have expected better.

mrgd wrote: TO TONY R: There's no argument from me about the prog elements, or lack thereof, in the bands you've mentioned, however, as jazz/rock fusion is a valid genre, I have been able to satisfy myself anyway, that Steely Dan could qualify. Their recent live performance helped me down that path.   Hi Mrgd; Nobody denies Steely Dan belongs in Jazz Rock, because they blend Jazz and Pop Rock. I used three quotes that define Jazz Rock yesterday:   Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: c : popular music combining different styles (as jazz and rock) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Fusion  Jazz fusion (or "jazz-rock fusion" or "fusion") is a musical genre that merges elements of jazz with other styles of music, particularly pop, rock, folk, reggae, funk, metal, country, R&B, hip hop, electronic music and world music. Fusion albums — even those that are made by the same artist — often include a variety of these musical styles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_fusion  A. Fusion, originally called Jazz-Rock, is an electrified genre of jazz featuring the musical devices of rock and funk. For example, electric keyboards and guitars are prominent, as are driving rather than swinging drum beats.     By John Matouk Jazz writer and photographer. He is a member of the Jazz Journalists Association and the National Writers Union.  http://jazz.about.com/mbiopage.htm   Steely Dan is perfectly defined by the three quotes...but in the special case of the Fusion bands we should add to Prog Archives, we need the blending of at least two elements, Jazz and PROGRESSIVE ROCK, and Steely Dan lacks of this extra requirement that Mahavishnu Orchestra, Sympozion or Jean-Luc Pontty have, you only need to listen one song of any of this three bands to know thay belong here without any doubt.   To expand a little more, The Pop Ropck Jazz Fusion icon of the 70's Chuck Mangione was a Jazz Rock artist, but only a lunatic would dare to induct him in Prog Archives   If he is too simple fopr you, try Herb Albert, he blended Jazz and Soft Rock, for God's sake when playing with the Tijuana Brass, even some mexican ethnic elenmments, as a prove that he blended Jazz with other genres, check the 1979 Billboards, the title song of his good album Rise reached the peak of the Bilboards in three categories:     Year Album Chart Peak 1979 Rise Black Albums 6 1979 Rise Jazz Albums 1 1979 Rise Pop Albums 6   Again, nobody would induct him because he lacks of any Prog component.   Now, I won't comment the second part of your post because I haven't read the misunderstanding and to be honest, i want to keep a safe distance of any troubles, just hope this clariifies the Steely Dan and Jazz Rock issue a bit more.   Iván   .

No to Steely Dan, Yes to John Cale

Edited by Easy Money - September 27 2007 at 00:49

Dick Heath wrote: I've played Steely Dan and Donald Fagen (especially Nightfly) as part of many jazz rock playlists on my radioshow for quarter of a decade without hesitation, simply  because they fit in with their special form of jazz fused with rock - ditto Joni Mitchell's mid/late 70's recordings. Most know my feeling wrt jazz rock and prog rock - especially as a member of the old guard who have always seen/heard prog as a fusion of rock with one or more other musical genre. Increasingly I feel, it's these johnnie come latelies who haven't been there from the start of progressive music, so not exposed firsthand to the genre before it got narrowed to the sort of music the main 5 bands produced 1971 - 1976. Certainly Steely Dan's music is miles away from Yes or Genesis, but it aint't miles away from the jazz rock fusion of MO, WR, Tasavallan Presidentti, BST, early Chicago etc. etc.   However, whilst part of the site is ultra-liberal to who is let in, we get into these anus-staring debates over the likes of Dan, who's output includes music  more worthy of being here than Queen etc. etc.  A final nag, if as was suggested by many 4 or 5 years ago, we had a section  that had elected, selected albums from a band's discography which had genuine prog elements - rather than the whole shebang - then we would be better off, and maybe avoid debates about Dan, Styx etc.