Steely Dan

MrBertstown wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: I wish I had Aja or pretzel logic.   I have Gaucho and some greatest hits album, but they are a bit too poppy, with minimal jazz jam session time as what seem to be on the above two. Great band though, just need a bit more.   My mom is a die-hard Steely Dan fan and In one book called Music Hound, Steely Dan was in the Art-Rock section. (Not making this up!)   Here's the songs that could give them the elegibility....   1-Do It Again 2-Fire in the Hole 3-Turn that Heartbeat over again 4-Bohittsava 5-The Boston Rag 6-King of the World 7-Your Gold Teeth (Part II) 8-Throw Back the Little Ones 9-Green Earings 10-Peg   Other than that...I consider them a Jazz-Rock Band like Chicago or Blood, Sweat, and Tears.

well put...

again....I refer people to Dick Heath's excellent post above.

Steey Dan is at least prog related now. I used to think otherwise but Zep's inclusion changed things dramatically.

unclemeat69 wrote: If Steely Dan would be on this site, Donald Fagen (solo) would have a good chance here as well

oh yeah.... he would..

Ghost Rider wrote: 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.   I'm not an expert on SD, though I have heard most of their albums, and like them a lot. However, I wish someone listened to the above wise words by Dick, who knows more about music than most of us, instead of ignoring him as it all too often happens.   This doesn't mean I support SD's inclusion, or that I don't understand some people's reservations. Having been part of the Admin Team, I know that every controversial addition means spending a couple of weeks reprimanding people and closing threads, and no one wants to do that.

Dick was dead on as usual...  and Raff you have a more direct way of putting things than I do.  I don't necessarily support their inclusion... but you better believe I understand why this group is called for again ...and again... and again for inclusion here.  I see the reasons for not including them.. and the reasons for including them  in a full prog sub. My concern. which I've been talking to Bob about ..are  the team concept.  My objectivity about SD can be, hell probably is ,  questioned since I'm a big fan... but are you going to question Richard's as well?  That man KNOWS jazz-rock.   If Jazz Rock is a sub-genre here.. that team should at least be able to decide whether it fits the site.  This never has been about Xover.. Dean and I have never even discussed the possiblity of adding them. Our debates are open to all collabs.

anyhow.... think this subject has been talked to death... in public at least.

Just to back up Tony's posts, the Admin team have great reservations about the addition of Steely Dan.

Yes it does, thanks Ivan. The examples you use are helpful. As I noted in an earlier post, admissions teams have a tough job. Keep up the good work.

Tony R wrote: What kind of message do these kind of threads send out? Over the last 12 months I've read on PA that all the following bands are Prog Rock bands: 1. Led Zepellin 2. The Who 3. Deep Purple 4. Steely Dan 5. Black Sabbath 6. Queen just off the top of my head. Each declaration was made in all sincerity. It is getting very silly. .

ahhhh... and the answer to your question Tony.. is an obvious one.

Is is silly...because YOU don't agree....   The kind of message these threads send out is the nature of prog is subjective.. not matter how badly people want to think they have it all figured out and are the judge, jury, and executioners of prog.  Outside of those bands  that were part of the traditional prog movement in the 70's... every one of these groups in PA's is prog and here. only because we call it such, based on evaluating the music.  The people who start these threads.. are doing the exact same thing.  Not bothering with labels, tags and all that crap.. just listening to the music.  Some we agree with.. and some we don't.   You can't  call suggestions for groups silly when you have different standards for admitting bands here.  Yes it is a fact of life that the collabs know that double standard exists...read my first post in this thread...  3 strikes and I would not  add them.  Yet to the posters who start these threads again and again...  they see this site as a place where you can find prog rock 'music'.... not music that has been lablelled by someone somewhere as 'prog' rock.  I'll be my paycheck that the people here are more interested in the music itself.. rather than who history has defined as prog.. or not prog...  that often being just by association.  Want to explain why Hawkwind is here then.. yet  not Steely Dan.  Anyhow.. just thinking out  loud. 

mrgd wrote: 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.

All  very nice but what on earth has this to do with whether SD should be included on a Prog Rock site?

I am at a loss to understand the logic that basically says "ignore the studio albums, go out and hear them live." The studio albums are the bands written statement of intent, surely?

What kind of message do these kind of threads send out?
Over the last 12 months I've read on PA that all the following bands are Prog Rock bands:

1. Led Zepellin
2. The Who
3. Deep Purple
4. Steely Dan
5. Black Sabbath
6. Queen


just off the top of my head. Each declaration was made in all sincerity.

It is getting very silly.
.

It has nothing to do with popularity. I love Steely Dan, have all of their albums, and finally got to see them live not too long ago. My opinion of their music has never changed. They are not prog.

I would think that Steely Dan is progressive under Fusion. And that argument about not having Progressive Country or Bluegrass doesn't make any sense to me. Progressive does not mean rock. It means the music changes throughout one song. Also other arguments that they weren't English and they were popular should not have any factor.