Dire Straits: Prog-Related? YES.

Alright, Ivan, let's leave it at this.

@Tony. You've posted four responses, now, two of which were essentially snide comments making assumptions about the character/intent of those supporting the suggestion without any grounds for it. My, admittedly, in a sense, revisionist, arguments for the band's inclusion were based, exclusively, on the content of Love Over Gold, not on historical perception or influences. If someone else wants to make those arguments, fine.

As this discussion has proceeded the two sides of the argument have become more entrenched. This is odd, because I thought the way forward was quite clear.

DIRE STRAITS has been suggested for Prog-Related.
- This means the proposer considers the band is not prog.
- The major piece of evidence offered in support of this proposition is the 1982 album 'Love Over Gold'.
- If 'Love Over Gold' is assessed as 100% prog, then by the rules of this site the band should be placed in a full prog category.
- Arguments and counter-arguments to this assessment have been made.
- Therefore it seems DIRE STRAITS cannot be considered a prog band, which supports the proposer's contention.
- The single question remaining, therefore, is whether DIRE STRAITS is prog-related.

With the greatest of respect to the admins/collabs who have adopted a tone of faint ridicule to this suggestion, I'd argue that this is not as clear-cut as you seem to be indicating. TonyR challenges the proponents of the argument to find any mention of progressive rock in articles/interviews/quotes. That's not going to be a fruitful search, as identifying with prog rock in 1982 was commercially limiting, to say the least. But reviewers haven't been so reticent:
(NB: I understand that the views of amateur reviewers and wikipedia are simply opinions. You don't need to tell me that AllMusic and Wikipedia are dubious; I know. My quoting them here is to indicate that some people out there consider 'Love Over Gold' progressive.)

In a sense, the album is their prog rock effort, containing only five songs, including the 14-minute opener "Telegraph Road." (AllMusic.com)

The song [Love Over Gold] is the closest song to reveal any blues characteristics on a relatively progressive album. (Wikipedia)

Due to its lengthy atmospheric instrumental passages it has been cited as the band's only album that resembles progressive rock, although not quite achieving it. (Wikipedia)

Plenty of Amazon.com reviews mention the album’s progressive tendencies: “Whoever said progressive rock was dead in 1982 must have forgotten to tell Mark Knopfler”, “The music here is very and innovative progressive rock”, “Love Over Gold offers subtle nuances in its progressive leanings”, and “Love Over Gold resembles those concept albums of the progressive rock bands of the 70's” are representative of this view. Moreover, many of the negative reviews the album receives are similar to the criticism suffered by progressive rock. Songs too long, music meanders, too complex etc.

I mention these views as they are similar to my own. If 'Love Over Gold' was representative of DIRE STRAITS' output I doubt we'd be arguing. But is one album that some say is clearly influenced by prog rock enough to be included in prog related? That is the question remaining to be answered.

And here's where it gets difficult and subjective. If you then try to argue 'X or Y are here in prog-related on the strength of one album, therefore so should Z', the argument is ruled invalid. So here's what we need to know. By what criteria can we suggest a prog-related band?

A final note to those who make these decisions. If you are unhappy that a band you believe should not be on this site actually has a case to be included, then, I beg you, don't argue with the proposer or ridicule him/her. Instead, change the rules to eliminate the ambiguity.

Russellk, did you post that as a member of the forum or representing the views of the Prog Reviewers/Collaborator ranks?

My point is that I am entitled to my personal opinion as the next member and in a discussion such as this if I was making an official pronouncement I would add "Admin Note:" or something similar.

Just for the record.

StyLaZyn wrote: Prog Related definition Progressive rock is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others, a voice in the chorus and as part of a biggest scenario has points of contact with other musical genres. Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that: - Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR - Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog. We specify the word MUSICAL because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their compositional work because the music is what determines the characteristics of a band or an artist. Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community.

Yeah, I've seen this, and I struggle with it. The statement "Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog"is very broad and seems to invite thousands of bands into the category - certainly DIRE STRAITS would make it easily with 'Love Over Gold'.

But there's a much more limiting statement: "Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community". This allows those who decide a simple way out of any controversial suggestion: band X did not contribute to the development of Progressive Rock, and it would be a source of confusion for the community. By these two criteria, which are in addition to the three initial 'or' statements, DIRE STRAITS is clearly excluded from Prog-related. But then, he said, ducking: so would many other bands/acts in prog related.

If the intent of the definition is to include all bands influenced by prog, we'd instantly triple the number of bands on the site. If the intent is to include all bands influential to the development of prog (a completely different thing), we have a clear overlap with proto-prog, surely? If the intent is to make this category a seldom-used term to include a few rare acts, and exclude bands like DIRE STRAITS, then why include the first three broad 'or' statements?

Look, I know how extraordinarily difficult constructing such a definition is. I know how incredibly frustrating it is to spend time countering arguments like those in this thread when you've got much better things to do. But the frequency and repetition of such debates suggests that a rethink of the category might be easier than feeling compelled to respond!

russellk wrote: f the intent of the definition is to include all bands influenced by prog, we'd instantly triple the number of bands on the site. If the intent is to include all bands influential to the development of prog (a completely different thing), we have a clear overlap with proto-prog, surely? If the intent is to make this category a seldom-used term to include a few rare acts, and exclude bands like DIRE STRAITS, then why include the first three broad 'or' statements?

1. Have contributed to the development of Prog Rock: Not remotely the case of Dire Straits, tbey have contributed in nothing with Prog Rock.
2. The inclusion of a band is exceptional: This limits more the universe
3. Only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community: If :
   1. All the Administrators were against the inclusion
   2. No representative Prog site has added them as Prog in 32 years of existence, despite one of them have added Jerry Lee lewis and William Shatner, and another considers AOR a full Prog sub-genre
   3. Is not an obscure band that could had been forgotten or lost in time, on the contrary, everybody knows about their existence
   4. 81.87% of the voters in a poll consider them not part of Prog Archives
   5. Has been rejected six times

Then is a source of confusion rather than help the better understanding of the genre called Progressive Rock.

Rest my case, the definition is perfectly clear.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 10 2009 at 15:38

russellk wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Prog Related definition Progressive rock is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others, a voice in the chorus and as part of a biggest scenario has points of contact with other musical genres. Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that: - Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR - Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog. We specify the word MUSICAL because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their compositional work because the music is what determines the characteristics of a band or an artist. Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community. Yeah, I've seen this, and I struggle with it. The statement "Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog"is very broad and seems to invite thousands of bands into the category - certainly DIRE STRAITS would make it easily with 'Love Over Gold'. But there's a much more limiting statement: "Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community". This allows those who decide a simple way out of any controversial suggestion: band X did not contribute to the development of Progressive Rock, and it would be a source of confusion for the community. By these two criteria, which are in addition to the three initial 'or' statements, DIRE STRAITS is clearly excluded from Prog-related. But then, he said, ducking: so would many other bands/acts in prog related. If the intent of the definition is to include all bands influenced by prog, we'd instantly triple the number of bands on the site. If the intent is to include all bands influential to the development of prog (a completely different thing), we have a clear overlap with proto-prog, surely? If the intent is to make this category a seldom-used term to include a few rare acts, and exclude bands like DIRE STRAITS, then why include the first three broad 'or' statements? Look, I know how extraordinarily difficult constructing such a definition is. I know how incredibly frustrating it is to spend time countering arguments like those in this thread when you've got much better things to do. But the frequency and repetition of such debates suggests that a rethink of the category might be easier than feeling compelled to respond!

Hm, now that's quite an interesting line of thought. I suppose one frustration here is that, given my grounds for supporting the suggestion are one progressive rock album (which I'd have said falls somewhere between Neo and Crossover, probably leaning towards the latter, because there's no tangible specific influence/connection with the original progressive acts), but the PR category seems to evade the 'one prog album = inclusion' rule, even if that one album would, perhaps, belong in a prog genre rather than the related one.

On the other hand, I think that category would be a much better fit for a band which, for the most part, did not output progressive music, and is known overwhelmingly for its non-prog material. As a category that seems to be maintained for the sake of completeness (solo artists, tangential artists like Kate Bush or David Bowie, later influences on prog), I can say that I think the inclusion of Dire Straits here would be rational if they were to make the site.

About the clarifications. I think, if you insisted on putting under the 'magniifying glass', so to speak, many of the PR artists, you could easily say that they haven't obviously contributed anything to prog, or at least, have not contributed to its development (which is surely what PP is for, anyway?) - what, for example, has Mike Rutherford's solo career done for prog's development? Kate Bush's? (yeah, I know the 'if X is here, Y should be' argument is off-kilter, but I'm using that rather of an example of a case where I feel that if we applied the definition in too constricting a fashion, we'd have difficulty justifying some of the most obvious inclusions for the genre.

In particular,
'Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.' seems to me to suggest that this 'influence on the development of prog' can come simply from being an extension of prog... otherwise, at least, that third condition (and possibly the first) would be somewhat irrelevant.

And to say, 'source of confusion for the community'... would having a definition saying 'in because Love Over Gold displays overt progressive characteristics' somewhat lessen that (hypothetically speaking, of course), in the same way that the excellent Hendrix-inclusion blurb, I think, helped express reasonably the motivations behind his inclusion in proto-. I think 'confusion for the community' is a very imprecise term, and somewhat of a watery get-out-of-jail-free card. Understandable, but I think community confusion is something which could very easily be worked around, and consequently, this condition should perhaps be seen in that light.

---

1. All the Administrators were against the inclusion

Yeah, not much I can say to that.

1. No representative Prog site has added them as Prog in 32 years of existence, despite one of them have added Jerry Lee lewis and William Shatner, and another considers AOR a full Prog sub-genre.

William Shatner?! That's pretty impressive. On the other hand, I think PA shouldn't shy away from including things just because other sites don't... yes, they're a useful point of reference in some respects, but I think, perhaps, PA's the one that's defining the genre these days.

On the other hand. Just googled a generic review site, whaddaya know, about the fifteenth or so review of this:

'A progressive masterpiece, my favourite work form DS. 'Telegraph Road' is the most complex stuff the Strais ever did, thus their best song ever. 'Private Investigations' is a bit strange and dark, but in the end becomes very progressive and a bit anvatgarde too. 'Industrial Disease' is the odd one out track, I like it the least, but the last two pieces are very satisfactory again.

However Dire Straits was never a "mainstream" prog band, this record is defnitely belonging to the collection of the biggest progressive works of all time.'

On about the twelfth.
'Dire Straits go art-rock. It was probably necessary for the band to try something new on their fourth album but I don't like the results. What they do here is not what I want from this band. It all sounds so "tasteful", and I mean in a bad way. In my opinion, the tracks are too long, the soloing is partially pointless and the new keyboard player takes up too much space. And I simply can't stand the nylon string guitar on "Private Investigations". Okay, that's just me, but it isn't exactly rock 'n' roll, is it?'

On the tenth or so
'Musically, this is a MUCH better song than the more commercially appealing BROTHERS IN ARMS'

'If it weren´t for that one throwaway pop song (Industrial Disease) I wouldn´t hesitate to call this one of the best albums of all time.  For the most part, it is.  It consists of strikingly original compostions and a mature, sober character and mood of a storytelling character.  The album is certainly one of the noblest and most ambitious ever released.'

'the band seems to have two sides - the snide hard rock band that is displayed on most of their singles, and the more ornate, cinematic soft-rock/lite-progressive band that fills out the rest of their albums. Love Over Gold represents mostly this second side'

'This album is a real prog blues rock masterpiece!! WOW!'

Etc.

So, you know, someone out there agrees with me in essence, and they're surprisingly easy to find.

1. Is not an obscure band that could had been forgotten or lost in time, on the contrary, everybody knows about their existence

Yes, but the view of their existence is coloured by their otherwise mainstream career. It could well be that the progressive elements of it (i.e., mostly Love Over Gold) were dismissed

1. 81.87% of the voters in a poll consider them not part of Prog Archives

18 voters considered they weren't suitable for PA, if that's the same poll you referred to in the other post. Let's put it into context. Additionally, if that poll is the one I remember, I think I saw at least one post saying, in essence, 'Love Over Gold is a prog album, but they shouldn't be here', which, at least, indicates that by the 'letter of the law', they would have been in support of the addition, but by their preference, they weren't.

1. Has been rejected six times

On the other hand, they've been suggested seven times, now... surely that indicates there is a feeling from at least a few people, that they're a band worthy of inclusion? I don't think anyone's suggested, say, AC/DC six times, even if, for my generation, they'd perhaps be comparably popular?


Edited by TGM: Orb - May 10 2009 at 16:45

TGM: Orb wrote: Hm, now that's quite an interesting line of thought. I suppose one frustration here is that, given my grounds for supporting the suggestion are one progressive rock album (which I'd have said falls somewhere between Neo and Crossover, probably leaning towards the latter, because there's no tangible specific influence/connection with the original progressive acts), but the PR category seems to evade the 'one prog album = inclusion' rule, even if that one album would, perhaps, belong in a prog genre rather than the related one.   Our ruules that you mention constantly say clearly that in case of a conflictive band, which is not mentioned in at least three sites, we must approve them by allthe members of a team, 100%, so that's almost impossible that seems to be maintained for the sake of completeness (solo artists, tangential artists like Kate Bush or David Bowie, later influences on prog), I can say that I think the inclusion of Dire Straits here would be rational if they were to make the site.   I still think that Kate Bush was a mistake, but I respect he decision of a team, inn the case of Bowie, HE WAS CLEARLY INFLUENTIAL ON PROGRESSIVE ROCK, AS A FACT DURING HIS STAGE OF ZIGGIE STARSDUST COULD BE CONSIDERED THE FATHER OF THEATRIC PROG. asily say that they haven't obviously contributed anything to prog, or at least, have not contributed to its development (which is surely what PP is for, anyway?) - what, for example, has Mike Rutherford's solo career done for prog's development? Kate Bush's? (yeah, I know the 'if X is here, Y should be' argument is off-kilter, but I'm using that rather of an example of a case where I feel that if we applied the definition in too constricting a fashion, we'd have difficulty justifying some of the most obvious inclusions for the genre.   I don't agree with Bus or Mike, but if a band or artist with whom I disagree has been accepted, it doesn't mean I have to make a worst mistake again just to make it even, only in abstract logic two mistakes make a correct conclusion, in real world we learn from our mistakes In particular, 'Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.' seems to me to suggest that this 'influence on the development of prog' can come simply from being an extension of prog... otherwise, at least, that third condition (and possibly the first) would be somewhat irrelevant.   No, the conclusion defines the degree of closeness they need to have, and in the case of Dire Straits is very shady to say the least And to say, 'source of confusion for the community'... would having a definition saying 'in because Love Over Gold displays overt progressive characteristics' somewhat lessen that (hypothetically speaking, of course), in the same way that the excellent Hendrix-inclusion blurb,   Hendrix influenced Prog in some degree, not enough for me (if you remember i disagreed also), but Dire Straits absolutely not.   I think, helped express reasonably the motivations behind his inclusion in proto-. I think 'confusion for the community' is a very imprecise term, and somewhat of a watery get-out-of-jail-free card. Understandable, but I think community confusion is something which could very easily be worked around, and consequently, this condition should perhaps be seen in that light.   If all the administrators and the voters of the poll think they don't belong here, well it's clearly a confusion --- All the Administrators were against the inclusion Yeah, not much I can say to that.   Not much really No representative Prog site has added them as Prog in 32 years of existence, despite one of them have added Jerry Lee lewis and William Shatner, and another considers AOR a full Prog sub-genre. William Shatner?! That's pretty impressive. On the other hand, I think PA shouldn't shy away from including things just because other sites don't... yes, they're a useful point of reference in some respects, but I think, perhaps, PA's the one that's defining the genre these days.   Our rules mention the case of conflictive bands, must be accepted by 100% of the votes of the team, and that won't happen. On the other hand. Just googled a generic review site, whaddaya know, about the fifteenth or so review of this: 'A progressive masterpiece, my favourite work form DS. 'Telegraph Road' is the most complex stuff the Strais ever did, thus their best song ever. 'Private Investigations' is a bit strange and dark, but in the end becomes very progressive and a bit anvatgarde too. 'Industrial Disease' is the odd one out track, I like it the least, but the last two pieces are very satisfactory again. However Dire Straits was never a "mainstream" prog band, this record is defnitely belonging to the collection of the biggest progressive works of all time.' On about the twelfth. 'Dire Straits go art-rock. It was probably necessary for the band to try something new on their fourth album but I don't like the results. What they do here is not what I want from this band. It all sounds so "tasteful", and I mean in a bad way. In my opinion, the tracks are too long, the soloing is partially pointless and the new keyboard player takes up too much space. And I simply can't stand the nylon string guitar on "Private Investigations". Okay, that's just me, but it isn't exactly rock 'n' roll, is it?' On the tenth or so 'Musically, this is a MUCH better song than the more commercially appealing BROTHERS IN ARMS' 'If it weren´t for that one throwaway pop song (Industrial Disease) I wouldn´t hesitate to call this one of the best albums of all time.  For the most part, it is.  It consists of strikingly original compostions and a mature, sober character and mood of a storytelling character.  The album is certainly one of the noblest and most ambitious ever released.' 'the band seems to have two sides - the snide hard rock band that is displayed on most of their singles, and the more ornate, cinematic soft-rock/lite-progressive band that fills out the rest of their albums. Love Over Gold represents mostly this second side' 'This album is a real prog blues rock masterpiece!! WOW!' Etc.   So, you know, someone out there agrees with me in essence, and they're surprisingly easy to find. Our universe of action is Progressive Rock, what general music sites normally missinformed about Prog say, mean nothing. It's funny, you want us to ignore what Prog sites say, but accept what non Prog sites say. Is not an obscure band that could had been forgotten or lost in time, on the contrary, everybody knows about their existence Yes, but the view of their existence is coloured by their otherwise mainstream career. It could well be that the progressive elements of it (i.e., mostly Love Over Gold) were dismissed   That's exactly my `point, in 32 years no Prog site has added them, that's clear enough for me, all the sites consider that even that album is not enough excuise to add them. 81.87% of the voters in a poll consider them not part of Prog Archives 18 voters considered they weren't suitable for PA, if that's the same poll you referred to in the other post. Let's put it into context. Additionally, if that poll is the one I remember, I think I saw at least one post saying, in essence, 'Love Over Gold is a prog album, but they shouldn't be here', which, at least, indicates that by the 'letter of the law', they would have been in support of the addition, but by their preference, they weren't.   But they weren't, they clearly said NO. Guessing will take you knowhere, the people talked with the nuumbers, 18 said no, 4 said yes. Has been rejected six times On the other hand, they've been suggested seven times, now... surely that indicates there is a feeling from at least a few people, that they're a band worthy of inclusion? I don't think anyone's suggested, say, AC/DC six times, even if, for my generation, they'd perhaps be comparably popular?   That's the stubborn condition of human being, a few try to force the majority to go against their opinion, I propose that once rejected, a band shouldn't be suggested again unless they release new material that merits their inclusion, of course that's not the case of Dire Straits.   We are loosing time in a 5 pages thread about a band that has been rejected six times.   Lets remember, you need one person to suggest, but you need many more to reject. Iván

OK, enough is enough I reckon....

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Hm, now that's quite an interesting line of thought. I suppose one frustration here is that, given my grounds for supporting the suggestion are one progressive rock album (which I'd have said falls somewhere between Neo and Crossover, probably leaning towards the latter, because there's no tangible specific influence/connection with the original progressive acts), but the PR category seems to evade the 'one prog album = inclusion' rule, even if that one album would, perhaps, belong in a prog genre rather than the related one.   Our ruules that you mention constantly say clearly that in case of a conflictive band, which is not mentioned in at least three sites, we must approve them by allthe members of a team, 100%, so that's almost impossible Doesn't affect my support for an addition. that seems to be maintained for the sake of completeness (solo artists, tangential artists like Kate Bush or David Bowie, later influences on prog), I can say that I think the inclusion of Dire Straits here would be rational if they were to make the site.   I still think that Kate Bush was a mistake, but I respect he decision of a team, inn the case of Bowie, HE WAS CLEARLY INFLUENTIAL ON PROGRESSIVE ROCK, AS A FACT DURING HIS STAGE OF ZIGGIE STARSDUST COULD BE CONSIDERED THE FATHER OF THEATRIC PROG. No disagreement there (though I support Kate). It's a credit to the site that an artist like Bowie, who is crucial to, but not a part of, progressive rock can be included in a category which doesn't put him in the 'prog' pigeonhole. asily say that they haven't obviously contributed anything to prog, or at least, have not contributed to its development (which is surely what PP is for, anyway?) - what, for example, has Mike Rutherford's solo career done for prog's development? Kate Bush's? (yeah, I know the 'if X is here, Y should be' argument is off-kilter, but I'm using that rather of an example of a case where I feel that if we applied the definition in too constricting a fashion, we'd have difficulty justifying some of the most obvious inclusions for the genre.   I don't agree with Bus or Mike, but if a band or artist with whom I disagree has been accepted, it doesn't mean I have to make a worst mistake again just to make it even, only in abstract logic two mistakes make a correct conclusion, in real world we learn from our mistakes I agree with both of those artists, Kate for her extension of Pfloydian ideas into the realm of art pop, and her role in Gabriel's solo career. My point was that the overly heavy-handed application of that rule would prevent perfectly valid artists being included as much as controversial ones. In particular, 'Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.' seems to me to suggest that this 'influence on the development of prog' can come simply from being an extension of prog... otherwise, at least, that third condition (and possibly the first) would be somewhat irrelevant.   No, the conclusion defines the degree of closeness they need to have, and in the case of Dire Straits is very shady to say the least Closeness never equals influence on the development of. So I don't get what you're trying to say here. And to say, 'source of confusion for the community'... would having a definition saying 'in because Love Over Gold displays overt progressive characteristics' somewhat lessen that (hypothetically speaking, of course), in the same way that the excellent Hendrix-inclusion blurb,   Hendrix influenced Prog in some degree, not enough for me (if you remember i disagreed also), but Dire Straits absolutely not.   That wasn't my point at all. My point was that confusion for the community can be cleared up pretty easily, so it shouldn't prevent an artist who should be here being here by itself. I think, helped express reasonably the motivations behind his inclusion in proto-. I think 'confusion for the community' is a very imprecise term, and somewhat of a watery get-out-of-jail-free card. Understandable, but I think community confusion is something which could very easily be worked around, and consequently, this condition should perhaps be seen in that light.   If all the administrators and the voters of the poll think they don't belong here, well it's clearly a confusion Community confusion isn't hard to work around or explain. --- No representative Prog site has added them as Prog in 32 years of existence, despite one of them have added Jerry Lee lewis and William Shatner, and another considers AOR a full Prog sub-genre. William Shatner?! That's pretty impressive. On the other hand, I think PA shouldn't shy away from including things just because other sites don't... yes, they're a useful point of reference in some respects, but I think, perhaps, PA's the one that's defining the genre these days.   Our rules mention the case of conflictive bands, must be accepted by 100% of the votes of the team, and that won't happen. Not relevant to whether I support an addition :) On the other hand. Just googled a generic review site, whaddaya know, about the fifteenth or so review of this: 'A progressive masterpiece, my favourite work form DS. 'Telegraph Road' is the most complex stuff the Strais ever did, thus their best song ever. 'Private Investigations' is a bit strange and dark, but in the end becomes very progressive and a bit anvatgarde too. 'Industrial Disease' is the odd one out track, I like it the least, but the last two pieces are very satisfactory again. However Dire Straits was never a "mainstream" prog band, this record is defnitely belonging to the collection of the biggest progressive works of all time.' On about the twelfth. 'Dire Straits go art-rock. It was probably necessary for the band to try something new on their fourth album but I don't like the results. What they do here is not what I want from this band. It all sounds so "tasteful", and I mean in a bad way. In my opinion, the tracks are too long, the soloing is partially pointless and the new keyboard player takes up too much space. And I simply can't stand the nylon string guitar on "Private Investigations". Okay, that's just me, but it isn't exactly rock 'n' roll, is it?' On the tenth or so 'Musically, this is a MUCH better song than the more commercially appealing BROTHERS IN ARMS' 'If it weren´t for that one throwaway pop song (Industrial Disease) I wouldn´t hesitate to call this one of the best albums of all time.  For the most part, it is.  It consists of strikingly original compostions and a mature, sober character and mood of a storytelling character.  The album is certainly one of the noblest and most ambitious ever released.' 'the band seems to have two sides - the snide hard rock band that is displayed on most of their singles, and the more ornate, cinematic soft-rock/lite-progressive band that fills out the rest of their albums. Love Over Gold represents mostly this second side' 'This album is a real prog blues rock masterpiece!! WOW!' Etc.   So, you know, someone out there agrees with me in essence, and they're surprisingly easy to find. Our universe of action is Progressive Rock, what general music sites normally missinformed about Prog say, mean nothing. It's funny, you want us to ignore what Prog sites say, but accept what non Prog sites say. It's very patronising to suggest that general music fans know nothing (and lastly, those are reviews on a site, not the express views of that site) about progressive rock. After all, prog rock is part of general music. At least some of them indicated grounds of reference for progressive rock, and a few suggested a preference for progressive rock. Some prog rock sites may well have different criteria for addition to us (for instance, a site which says that a band can be included only on the balance of their career couldn't possibly include Dire Straits as a prog band, otoh, our system quite reasonably could). I don't know. Also, given you're denying that these prog sites (with AOR and William Shatner what have you) are credible, if they were on the other side, you'd probably ignore them, too. Is not an obscure band that could had been forgotten or lost in time, on the contrary, everybody knows about their existence Yes, but the view of their existence is coloured by their otherwise mainstream career. It could well be that the progressive elements of it (i.e., mostly Love Over Gold) were dismissed   That's exactly my `point, in 32 years no Prog site has added them, that's clear enough for me, all the sites consider that even that album is not enough excuise to add them. No, it's not even close to your point. I was speaking about a biased view against the progressive aspects and elements of their music. 81.87% of the voters in a poll consider them not part of Prog Archives 18 voters considered they weren't suitable for PA, if that's the same poll you referred to in the other post. Let's put it into context. Additionally, if that poll is the one I remember, I think I saw at least one post saying, in essence, 'Love Over Gold is a prog album, but they shouldn't be here', which, at least, indicates that by the 'letter of the law', they would have been in support of the addition, but by their preference, they weren't.   But they weren't, they clearly said NO. Guessing will take you knowhere, the people talked with the nuumbers, 18 said no, 4 said yes. People also talked with the posts, yes? If someone says they don't think a band should be here, but they think that band has a prog album, their 'no' is invalid in the context of whether they support a band addition. Also, talking up 18 people as 81.87%, while technically accurate, 18 is hardly representative of a majority view. Has been rejected six times On the other hand, they've been suggested seven times, now... surely that indicates there is a feeling from at least a few people, that they're a band worthy of inclusion? I don't think anyone's suggested, say, AC/DC six times, even if, for my generation, they'd perhaps be comparably popular?   That's the stubborn condition of human being, a few try to force the majority to go against their opinion, I propose that once rejected, a band shouldn't be suggested again unless they release new material that merits their inclusion, of course that's not the case of Dire Straits.   We are loosing time in a 5 pages thread about a band that has been rejected six times.   Lets remember, you need one person to suggest, but you need many more to reject. Iván The few are sometimes right, or at least reasonable, the conception of progressive is always changing, and the interpretation of a band's material in retrospect is a crucial part of creating genre definitions and understanding. Preventing re-suggestion would, at best, be overkill, and at worst, cause a rigid non-recognition of changing views. I would, maybe, support the idea of leaving the existing suggestion thread open and not allowing the opening of a new one so that the idea of the band's merit for inclusion can still be discussed once it's been rejected/accepted, because then people can then register their changing views without necessarily re-suggesting a band. You really don't need all that many folks to reject an addition, and at least putting in and defending the suggestion takes a surprising amount of effort. Frankly, it's not been the same person suggesting it every time. And frankly, if we were that worried about losing time trying to put square bands into round genre holes, we wouldn't be on PA anyway

Everything is prog related.