are The Grateful Dead that prog related?yes / not?

I personally think the Grateful Dead had a huge influence on parts of the early Krautrock scene, so they should at least be in prog-related. Just listen to Ash Ra Tempel's "Freak'n Roll", and you will know what I mean.

Edited by BaldFriede - June 12 2008 at 15:30

Did somebody say "Beating a "Dead" horse"? 

febus wrote: I know GRATEFUL DEAD produced some psychedelic albums in 67/68....they added some ''prog'' touches on albums like BLUES FROM ALLAH, but a limit should be drawed to which bands should be added to PA database.  Otherwise it's no longer progarchives, but simply rock archives.   I know Jefferson Airplane or the Doors are already included here, so why not next adding the BYRDS, FLYING BURRITOS BROTHERS and other NEIL YOUNG.. I am sure i will be able to find a ''prog touch'' here and there. My point is these bands are not prog., proto-prog whatever you want to name them and should not even be thought of being added on PA.......otherwise you change the name of PA. and open the doors to everyone that play some rock.

Pnoom! wrote: ^^^ If x then y arguments don't hold sway here. Grateful Dead influenced some prog, but they are not a prog band and don't belong on the site.

BaldFriede wrote: micky wrote: BaldFriede wrote: I personally think the Grateful Dead had a huge influence on parts of the early Krautrock scene, so they should at least be in prog-related. Jut listen to Ash Ra Tempel's "Freak'n Roll", and you will know what I mean. what about the Velvet Underground Friede.. as much... or even more so? The Velvet Underground are reflected in the very first Krautrock album, "Psychedelic Underground" by Amon Düül. Even the name is a reference to them.

If The Dead won't be included I wouldn't lose any sleep, but something else bothers me: yes, I'll use the "if X then Y" or "if not X then not Y argument" because I have to. Let me explain way.

All the proposed are passing through the same gateway of evaluation, the same filter so to say, right?

Well, neither GD nor VU are prog. They shouldn't be here in prog category, they can both be in related category by some stretch. The question is, what is the site meriting from such inclusions? Personally, I'm surprised so many voted in favour of VU - the problem of them (and all of prog related category) is public perception. Add VU here and there'll be reactions "oh, we started adding punk!". Only a minority will recognise ties with Krautrock..and "suggest new bands" section will be flooded with Blondie, New York Dolls, Television etc.

Probably neither should be here. GD were not prog, the "genre" where they belong (and cultural and artistic movement in general= is known, and there's no need to analyse it. That hippy trippy thingie is in a way related to his baby born few years later, called prog rock. Including them here might be bit of a stretch, but on the other hand, why do we have Iron Maiden here? They also belong to the genre that is not prog, but that genre borrowed a lot from prog and is sharing some of the same aesthetics and drama, more than will many a forum member care to admit. I know, I know, they influenced prog metal--but I still think we're dealing with different standards for different bands here, even if our collabs are doing some great work.

I love all of the aforementioned bands. Perhaps that's all that is important --not the fact they're here or not.

I realized prog related category is a curse here-not because of non-prog content but because of effort involved and wasted energy while we could've been adding and evaluating dozen prog bands.

I won't be participating in prog-related discussions for a while...I have some prog bios to upgrade. Damn, what am I doing here?

Pnoom! wrote: zicIy wrote: Pnoom! wrote: ^^^ If x then y arguments don't hold sway here. Grateful Dead influenced some prog, but they are not a prog band and don't belong on the site.   but, Pnoom, i dont asking that GD is prog or not, my question was....you can see.    that "x" &"y" stuff which you like so much i cant understand, sorry. You argued that since Zappa is here, GD should be here.  That is a poor argument and holds no sway. I think the GD shouldn't be here because lots of bands influenced prog, and that simply isn't enough to make it onto the site.  GD are, if anything, tangent to prog, but certainly not prog, prog-related, or proto-prog.

Edited by zicIy - June 14 2008 at 00:42

Pnoom! wrote: For the record, I don't really think Zappa belongs here, either, except maybe for his jazz-fusion stuff (Hot Rats, Grand Wazoo, and the like).

Edited by zicIy - June 14 2008 at 02:37

zicIy wrote: Pnoom! wrote: For the record, I don't really think Zappa belongs here, either, except maybe for his jazz-fusion stuff (Hot Rats, Grand Wazoo, and the like).   ok, that´s your opinion, i´d to respect that. for the record too, my first concert was Uriah Heep (High and Mighty tour), and i´v been very surprised and delighted when i saw UH at PA. i´v been thinking all these years that was hard rock (awesome!) gig. but, anyway, i can feel proud now, the first concert was one great Prog act, nothing less!

Being on progarchives doesn't make a band prog

I don't know Uriah Heep, but I'm just saying.

GD certainly belong here more than Phish...

I recognize Jam Band, as a genre, so they cannot be fully prog, IMO. I also think Prog-related is a dubious genre, but the Dead deserve to be in there if anyone does.