The Stranglers???

they should Jean...  since SD were brought up here.... let me touch on them. They are listed on two other major sites, .. and have been for some time. They were added on the consultation of two teams here, and with the knowledge it would not be popular since they are probably in the words of one of the SC's here.. one of the most misunderstood groups EVER.  This site has a place to educate.  I am open to doing that with the Stranglers.   The Stranglers have a dubious entry on one site, that I have seen at least. I'm open to seeing them here... this is GREAT stuff... and is not 3 chords and a coat of sheen on them.  It is very advanced for the tag they have been given.   but let's not be blind here... if this group is added it will NOT be a popular move... what is the door being opened to.  There is a team guarding that door...  but still... let's be honest...  anyway you cut it.  This will not be a popular addition

going to toss this out there.... and see what people say. I have not heard the opinons of Dean, who knows this group.. or Chris who like me was not famiar with them at all so is not blinkered in the negative as some are by what others tag and label this group as. 


It is undeniable to say this music is grounded in New Wave. thus for many is not exactly on first listen what they feel prog to be.  For those who didn't notice.. .I started a thread a couple of days ago on a similar vein...  80's King Crimson... and the responses were OVERWHELMING that in spite of the OBVIOUS New Wave (and Talking Heads influences... but yes... that is for another day in respect to Hugues hahha ) that music was prog... or very progressive.  The two being interchangeable to many... and seperate to others.. it really depends on how you see music and the site.

After all that...   I'll ask... especially those who supported this... yet made arguments for this group.. yet are completely blind, or unwilling to see that those same arguments apply to other bands here which they don't seem to agree with.  It doesn't cut one way one time.. and another just because we like a group.  If this band was progressive.. more complex in it's music that the groups it is often dumped in with.... does that mean that you.. .and the forum will accept that same rationale to be applied to other groups.  This is not the team speaking.. .but in fact... your answer.. answers here.. will help me decide which way to go with my vote and who knows maybe others.....  You all want input..this is your chance.

Peter wrote: As i indicated before, I strongly believe that adding the Stranglers would not only cause an uproar, but would result in many calls for other bands from that era (loosely connected under the 'new wave" banner), who also exhibited top-notch musicianship, and imaginative songs & arrangements. Is this where we are going, listing all good rock/pop?   A few of the more obvious examples would be:   Echo and the Bunnymen -- check out the presence of Shankar on the very sophisticated Porcupine, and the full string section on Ocean Rain.

Peter wrote:   Next on PA Prog Radio will be Watcher of the Skies, followed by... Peaches.

Edited by Dick Heath - October 15 2008 at 08:53

As I said earlier, there is no problem with considering The Stranglers New Wave, Punk or whatever - their music is ALSO Progressive.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: If you say Wikipedia is so reliable:   5 Punk transforms 5.1 New Wave 5.2 Post-punk 5.3 Hardcore 5.4 Oi! 5.5 Anarcho-punk 5.6 Pop punk 5.7 Other fusions and directions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock   Seems that Wikipedia, defines New Age as Punk transformed  In other words A LATER INCARNATION of Punk, and the article implies much more relations.   And NO I don't trust in Britannica in musical issues, according to them, Punk died in 1980 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/483616/punk#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=punk%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia   We all know this is not accirate, it transformed and barely survicved, bbut 1980 is not the end of Punk.   As a fact in school they never allopwed us to present homeworks based in Encyclopedia, they asked for specialized books.   Iván

Ivan, that's exactly what I said: New Wave had its roots in Punk, but it no longer IS Punk. you might as well say "Prog is Psychedelic", just because some of the origins of prog lie there. New Wave evolved into something completely different. another root of New Wave definitely is the electronic pop a la Kraftwerk.
as to those people who said the Stranglers called themselves punk: listen to the interview with Hugh Cornwell here, in which he more or less says they didn't give a damn what they were called, they just wanted to play their music:
http://club.kingsnake.com/index.php/archives/354-Podcast-SXSW-Artist-Spotlight-Interview-Hugh-Cornwell.html


Edited by BaldJean - October 15 2008 at 00:46

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: russellk wrote: There's no doubt that New Wave was influenced by various stands of the punk genre. The Wikipedia article makes that clear. And no one denies the connection. But, as I said ad nauseum in my previous post, that's a long way from saying that New Wave is a stage of Punk.   That's a matter of opinions Russelk, other sites that I quoted say it's almost a synonymous, even Wikipedia (The ledsscreliable of all, being that it can be edited by anybody) says that both terms were interchangeable. Definition: New Wave is a kinder, gentler, more commercially successful form of Punk Rock. In fact, it evolved from, and eventually replaced punk   http://classicrock.about.com/od/glossary/g/newwave.htm   Or other stes that qualify New Wave bands as Punk, POst punk, British Punk also....And believe me, I trust more in any place rather than Wikipedia (I said it in my first post). And as for leaving people in peace to decide things, that's rather a cop-out. Had I not moseyed on to this thread I wouldn't have bought a Stranglers album. What's wrong with continuing the discussion?   Good for you and for The Stranglers who are going to collect some royalties, but as long as it's decided if they are Prog or not, it's not the function of Prog Archives, unless we are at the General music section.   Iván

Ivan, Wikipedia is indeed very credible, just due to the very fact that anybody can correct articles there. believe me, incorrect articles don't survive for long in there. and there have been studies that proved that Wikipedia is as trustworthy as any well-reputed encyclopedia. there just was a recent study in Germany that compared Wikipedia with Brockhaus. the fact that anybody can write in there makes Wikipedia based on a larger number of experts than any publishing house of an encyclopedia could afford to pay. a self-proclaimed "classic rock" site, on the other hand, does not seem to be very trustworthy to me.
but you don't even have to believe me, Ivan. go ahead and write your opinion about New Wave in Wikipedia and see how long it will survive.
and if, after that, you still don't believe it, how about trying the Encyclopedia Brittanica for a change?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412228/new-wave
or is the Encyclopedia Brittanica not trustworthy either?


Edited by BaldJean - October 14 2008 at 23:45

There's no doubt that New Wave was influenced by various stands of the punk genre. The Wikipedia article makes that clear. And no one denies the connection. But, as I said ad nauseum in my previous post, that's a long way from saying that New Wave is a stage of Punk.

And as for leaving people in peace to decide things, that's rather a cop-out. Had I not moseyed on to this thread I wouldn't have bought a Stranglers album. What's wrong with continuing the discussion?

But, what's the point of his now?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 14 2008 at 18:30

Dean wrote: the stalwarts at the BBC believed that any that band who released a single in a picture sleeve was New Wave and therefore unsuitable for the Radio 1 playlist, whereas in the USA the term was used to get bands on to the radio station playlists.

interesting to know