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

I think Stonie has a very good point here (and yes, Umphrey McGee's are here too, in Jazz-Rock/Fusion). Even if I am not by any means an expert in any of those bands, I've heard Phish compared to the Dead often enough to wonder at the consistency of having one here and not the other.

Actually, the main problem with having a Prog-Related category is exactly that, in my very humble opinion... That 'relation' can very easily become like the notorious game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", i.e. a chain of associations that can often lead away from what we generally consider as prog. 

I hope my above point was clear... It wasn't about the rightness of the "if X is here, why not Y?" approach, but rather about consistency (or lack thereof). Either we find a method to the 'madness' that is the whole Prog-Related category, or I'm afraid threads such as this will continue to exist, and sometimes even descend in less than dignified discussions.

I say pass. I think this is more of a case of "I want to see this band in PA!" than anything having to do with actual influence or prog-relation.

With all this controversy surrounding the prog related genre, there are bands with much more prog or prog-related songs being denied from prog related than bands being included in "full prog" genres.

stonebeard wrote: I'm talking about consistency. Santana's here. The Dead aren't. Phish is here. The Dead aren't. That is inconsistent. If I cared enough about the Dead, I probably could give you an argument  as to why they should be in prog-related, a genre which I think is doing more trouble than good. But the point remains: if Phish are here, a band that essentially is the Dead, then they should be as well.

you are not listening Andrew.. .there is NO consistency to be had in PR additions... this site IS  consistent and strives to be comprehensive where it matters...pursuing prog additions to the database... .NOT PR additions.  They are targeted additions for various reasons... and the category is not intended to have any and every group that is PR.  You agree with the Dead being in PR...  but will you be the first to bitch about a band you do NOT think is PR enough.  If you don't...  you would be one of the very few here that wouldn't.. we see it all the time.  Face it.. people have their notions of Prog.. or what is related to prog.. and have demonstrated TIME AND TIME AGAIN.. that they are unable to see past THEIR notions and see that others see things differently.

The site doesn't need that kind of sh*t at all... we have enough with fully prog additions

Why else do you think the admin team has strict control on Prog Related  additions...  and I think we all would agree the last thing we want or need our admins to become is 'full-time' PR genre team members screening every Tom, Dick and Harry that got submitted if indeed we strove to be consistent and have every group that was remotely prog related.


Edited by micky - June 16 2008 at 20:18

sigh

Edited by Peter - June 17 2008 at 01:57

Peter wrote:  How's this for a definition? PROG FAN: a person who obsessively and compulsively over-intellectualizes and analyzes music, pronouncing some to be worthy (and thus "prog") but most as unworthy. No two "prog" fans will ever agree upon these distinctions, however, and they will argue endlessly on the scope of the term they would use to separate their supposedly high-brow music from that of the bleating, sheep-like masses (See also proghole, progsnob, file clerk, art rock accountant, dweeb and nerd -- also the related pain-in-the-ass, party-pooper, buzz killer, and insufferable pompous wet blanket. )

   this one's for wiki, Peter

Atavachron wrote: ^ That's highly questionable, but you give no examples either of bands denied progrelated status or ones added as full prog that are unworthy   ..as far as I know, ProgRelated is not a regular category to be utilized as such, but rather a special area for a small number of artists that were literally related to prog or who were significantly influenced by it.  In the case of the Dead, neither is demonstrable, IMO.

It is not questionable. The site has a clear policy to include any new band that just released one album that can be called progressive, and even those who never released any album (unsigned bands).

But for older bands, there is a strict policy that denies some bands that have one or two albums that can be called progressive because in general the artist's primary genre is not prog. And they are denied even in the prog-related . BTW, Prog-Related nowadays add only the favorite non-prog bands of some of the "powerful" collabs.

That's why, for example, the database of this site has no credibility for me concerning the new prog bands.  And instead of fighting hardly against the proposals of old bands, I think something should be done to close the floodgates of new bands. But this would mean that some collabs would have to stop using the genres they take care of to add bands they like and many disagree, like those bands that got 20% yes, 80% no in the polls and were added anyway.

But this subject is too hot to be touched and of course the replies will be all in state of denial. But I want to know if there is any collab that had to write an essay explaining why any band deserves to be added in the genre he is "specialist" in the same way you demand the other people to do to prove that a band deserves to be added either in a full prog genre or in a prog-related genre.

And just to finish, I don't even know much material from Grateful Dead to care about their addition, but the discussion about this addition created an adequate situation to raise these questions.

Peter wrote: sigh      You know, I've said it again and again, but no one seems to take much notice -- or perhaps my position is too "extreme":   "Prog" or "progressive" is not exactly a known, clearly-delineated form of music. In fact, it's not even a single "form" of music at all. It's very amorphous, very subjective, very much a value judgment made in a unique fashion by each individual here.   THUS "prog related" (or "proto prog") is even more problematic. Despite what many here seem to pretend, the music this site deems "prog" has no clear boundaries. As soon as you try to define and contain or "encircle" it with mere words, in a manner that will meet with broad approval from music fans from 14 to 64, and whose tastes range from death metal, to classic rock, to folk, jazz, classical, rap etc, etc, etc, some listed bands which do not meet that supposed criteria can be easily found.   The exact nature of "prog" (and what is "related" to it ) is thus not worth arguing about. In fact, I sincerely believe it's pointless (if the point of arguing is to reach resolution, or some form of agreement, or to determine who is right, and who is wrong), because it's all so subjective. Beyond its historic origins and applications (inadequate and subjective then, as well) "prog" is merely a value judgment -- much like "good," "bad" "best," "worst" "overrated/underrated" (retch), etc.       Prog Archives: I love a lot of the listed music, and enjoy the virtual company of many of the great people here. I care much, much less for the constant bickering and pontification as to "real" prog, inclusion and exclusion, etc.   Is prog just complicated rock? What about the jazz, metal and folk stuff? Is it complicated MUSIC? Where's the classical & "prog bluegrass," etc, sections, then? (And then someone will say "Pink Floyd's not complicated."   Just face it: "progressive" is a near-useless way to categorize music (beyond your OWN collection, that is). What is "related" to that huge, ever-expanding, undefined, highly-contentious and subjective thingamabobby? Everything else is!   This will never, ever end, because, you see, none of us really knows what the other means by "prog."   Note to self: If you ever start a music-reviewing site, just list all artists alphabetically, and in the broadest categories possible/practical. Just put the so-called "prog rock" in with the ROCK, the "prog metal' in with the METAL, the "prog folk" in with the FOLK, the "prog jazz" (or whatever we call it) in with the JAZZ, etc.   Much like record stores -- in their wisdom -- do.   These would-be fine, exacting categories suck, IMO. From what I can see, they're only good for starting arguments, "ghettoizing" music, and dividing music fans. (They help you find "similar" music, you say? The highly-subjective nature of "similar" aside, that's what your EARS, and good reviews are for!)    How's this for a definition? PROG FAN: a person who obsessively and compulsively over-intellectualizes and analyzes music, pronouncing some to be worthy (and thus "prog") but most as unworthy. No two "prog" fans will ever agree upon these distinctions, however, and they will argue endlessly on the scope of the term they would use to separate their supposedly high-brow music from that of the bleating, sheep-like masses.   (See also proghole, progsnob, file clerk, art rock accountant, dweeb and nerd -- also the related pain-in-the-ass, party-pooper, buzz killer, and insufferable pompous wet blanket. )   But carry on  -- I know you will!   Indignant, mortally-offended, "just leave then" response posts to follow in 3 - 2 - 1....

Peter, I couldn't agree more with you. I was always against artificial invention of some "sub-genres" and felt that it would be better to have less than to have more sub-categories. Definition and labeling can be a burdensome job and create unneeded frustrations where there is no problem. Even the term prog is questionable as you said, but at least it has a historical reference to 1970s progressive rock.

Maybe you are too harsh when defining prog fans but surely some do deserve it.

Prog-related category is confusing, but as I remember Max introduced it as a means to expand the addition of other bands that may add value to the PA in terms of attracting more "non-prog" visitors who might be interested to learn of "pure" prog. While I cannot say I entirely agree with this idea, it was up to him to decide.

How this all started? Ah, THE GRATEFUL DEAD! Since I am a big fan of the band (but no, not Deadhead ) and that I own 99% of their official studio and live albums, I think I can throw a penny or two into this thread.

Without doubt, GD are one of the greatest rock acts in the history. Regarding their genre/category description, I think it is silly idea since their music is the art influenced by plethora of musical elements and legacy. But, to uninitiated, let me try to put it this way:

1. 1967-69, first four albums (s/t debut, Anthem of the Sun, Aoxomoxoa and Live Dead) are genuine psychedelia sprang out of Californian folk-rock, related to JEFFERSON AIRPLANE. There were lots of experimentation with long solos and electronics, both in studio and live context;

2. 1970-73, two studio (Workingmans Dead and American Beauty) and three live (The Grateful Dead, Europe '72 and Bear's Choice), more mainstream country rock and folk rock oriented studio albums with frequent blues and R'n'B covers. In this period they gained reputation of a "jam band" capable of playing long improvisations in concerts.

3. 1973-77, four studio (Wake of the Flood, Mars Hotel, Blues for Allah and Terrapin Station) and a live album (Steal Your Face), they developed an enormous "Wall of Sound" technology for live gigs, resembling the FLOYD's attention to technicalities, these albums contain more elements of jazz and progressive rock, and even traces of electronic/space experiments. Creative peak of the band, at least in terms of studio albums production.

4. 1978-81, two studio (Shakedown Street and Go to Heaven) and two live sets (Dead Set and Reckoning), Declining period, studio albums are weaker containing shorter and radio friendly songs, elements of mainstream American "heartland rock" with usual mixture of country, folk and blues.

5. 1987-90, great come back after 6 years hiatus, commercial peak with album In the Dark. Poor album Built to Last and excellent live set Without a Net with lengthy improvised versions of songs including jazz moments.

Now, that's it excluding their enormous unofficial or semi-official (Dick's Picks) and bootleg live records...
Anyone can tell me where to file this band? In fact, I don't really care. I just love them .

It is only illogical to have JEFFERSON AIRPLANE here in "proto" category and not to have GD. I will leave you to decide without my explicit answer...

Easy Livin wrote: Such a post does you no credit Akin. I had always perceived you as someone who took their appointment as a PR (and thus ambasador for the site) seriously. Just because you disagree with some additions, and feel that others who should be here go unapproved is no excuse for resorting to conspiracy theories and the questioning of the integrity of our SCs.   Your first paragraph is correct, M@x has stated that the site policy should eb that if a band has made a prog album, they should be listed. The second paragraph is quite simply imaginative rubbish. There is no such policy, either stated or not. The notion that it is the favourites of powerful Scs is also insulting and wrong. It insults both the collaborators and the Admin team (who oversee the Prog related category). We treat ever request to add a band as Prog related equally. The name or position of the proposer is irrelevant.   The suggestion in your third paragraph that collaborators use genres to add bands they like is also insulting. Each sub-genre has a team who jointly decide on additions. The memebrs of the genre teams take their work very seriously, and take great pride in ensuring bands added to them fit that genre. It is very easy to make uninformed and insulting accusations such as you have done, but interestingly you offer no evidence.   Your fourth para implies that any denial is futile. You have appointed yourself judge and jury. You then appear to suggest that there should be no need for a proposer to offer any form of justification for their proposal.   You may actually find it reassuring if you were to join a specialist team and see exactly how they work. You would then find that your conspiracy theories are unfounded and hurtful to your co-collaborators involved.

You critics would be valid if I had said that every specialist adds what they want. I said that some have added bands contrary to others suggestions (like polls with 80% voting for not adding). I know that are hard workers there and I directed my comment to those who abuse of their position sometimes. I, of course, will not mention their names explicitly for ethical reasons.

My fourth paragraph was misunderstood by you. I said that there should be the necessity of every addition to be justified, being it done either by consensus over suggestions or by the private research of the specialists. So instead of battling over the arguments 'I see prog in the songs of band X' and 'I don't see prog in songs of band X', the proposers would write an essay like the ones the specialists had to write to justify an inclusion and if he could make a good essay, the band would be really considered for addition. This measure would also close the floodgates and avoid the fights based on taste. This would make the argument 'if X then Y' less often also because anyone could check all the arguments that led the inclusion of X before proposing Y just because the person thinks they sound the same.

About the second paragraph, my argument is not rubbish, because many bands were rejected because one of their albums was prog, but the rest of their catalogue not prog enough. Check the forums and you will spot that very often. About the prog-related additions, they seem to be made according to special collabs taste. If it is so, it doesn't mean that they are in fact done like that, but that the policy for these additions is so bad that they make it seem true and they lead to the most fights of the site.

See, every discussion has always the same arguments "I think it is'/'I think it is not' and 'every artist is added according to his own merits'. If these are the main arguments, if you compare a band that was approved and a band that was rejected, you will think that the additions are not based on the arguments (which are always the same, as I said), but on the people that made the arguments in favor or against the inclusion.

The conclusion is that the site lacks transparency in its decisions and if nothing is done to increase transparency to the people who is concerned about the site, most of the energy will continue being spent on the same bs and we will see the same kinds of unfertile discussions and topics forever.

And for those who felt offended by my previous post, I apologize because I didn't mean to offend the people that work hard for the site, but probably my points were not so clear for you.