Grateful Dead- Not Even Prog-Related? Really?

Their fusion of genres and heavy leaning on improvised space and psychedelic rock, plus a tendency to jump wildly between different sounds would seem to make them a shoo-in. And yet there seems to be a consensus that they don't belong here. Can someone explain why?

 ^ southern rock?  only to the extent that they sometimes dabbled in country music  

I love the Dead, especially their progressive period [Blues for Allah, Terrapin, etc.] and they probably deserve a spot in PR for those albums (at least)-- on the other hand, the bulk of their career was not progressive .. it's a hard call

^ --  they're a west coast acid rock band, always have been









Edited by Atavachron - February 01 2010 at 02:29

^

^ Psych?  Folk?  Eclectic?

I know many of you hate the "if x got in then how come y doesn't get in" argument but it's hard to avoid when dealing with a major voice in American alternative music like the Grateful Dead. "Kamelot, no problem, but Grateful Dead, uh-uh" is a little absurd in my opinion.

First of all mrcozdude, the Grateful Dead are not, nor ever were a southern rock band, as far as I know there are 5 criteria for being a southern rock band.

1) be a rock band from the southern US.
2) fans bring confederate flags to your concert.
3) guitar players in the band outnumber the non-guitar players.
4) lead singer drinks a lot and can kick your ass, big time.
5) the road crew should be in jail.

As you know, The Grateful Dead only meet criteria 5. Otherwise they are a bunch of California hacky sack hugging, doctor's permit holding, patchouli snorting paisley heads who can not beat up anybody, not even the members of their own band.

Now ... Re Textbook's proposal. I am sure you read our definition of PR and know what it entails for an artist to meet the rigorous standards of a PR PA artist. (Most people have proposed the Dead for proto-prog, but you don't play that). In case there was any doubt, here are some guidelines:

1) be a big influence on the development of prog in some corner of the globe, without being a total prog band.
2) have a career that parallels and intersects with the development of prog.
3) be a favorite band of somebody who works hard for the site and has gathered a lot of friends on here. (kidding .. sort of)


There is a case for The Dead as an influential band as they were one of the first rock bands to indulge in lengthy improvs, but there are also so many other artists who have not made PR or proto that need a serious look too: Beach Boys, Velvet Underground, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Cream, Joe Satriani, Yngwie Malmsteen and some others I'm not thinking of right now.
Two influential artists on prog who are not here and probably never will be are Eddie Van Halen and Bob Dylan. Likewise, James Brown and Bootsy Collins (while in James' band) liberated the bass guitar from support status and gave it an individual voice which was a big influence on prog, but I bet you never see them here either.

It all depends on how wide we want to cast the net for bands that were influential on prog, but not entirely prog. Right now I'd say the net is stretched the furthest at Jefferson Airplane, but that's just my opinion.


Edited by Easy Money - February 01 2010 at 23:19

Easy Money wrote: Now ... Re Textbook's proposal. I am sure you read our definition of PR and know what it entails for an artist to meet the rigorous standards of a PR PA artist. (Most people have proposed the Dead for proto-prog, but you don't play that). In case there was any doubt, here are some guidelines: 1) be a big influence on the development of prog in some corner of the globe, without being a total prog band. 2) have a career that parallels and intersects with the development of prog. 3) be a favorite band of somebody who works hard for the site and has gathered a lot of friends on here. (kidding .. sort of)

Having been here longer than John, I can say that the main problem (the one that causes people to get mad and start bashing other additions) is that the criteria you listed above have not always been as rigorous as they are now. This is proved by the presence of some slightly odd names in the PR section (like Super Furry Animals), as well as some bands or artists that were added in the early days of the site, without any kind of quality control.

Seen the level of controversy accompanying some of the additions (complete with personal attacks), the standards have been tightened - but those dubious additions are still there, and some are even in genres that are considered fully prog (as in the case of Nightwish). Now, Prog-Related could probably use a 'cleanup session' of the kind we had in Symphonic, but, since entries can only be deleted in very special circumstances, it would probably not be much use.

John, I'd be all too glad to suggest Morricone... I can hear his influence in a lot of rock music, prog or otherwise, and I know for sure he's considered one of the most influential living composers. Anyway, I was not trying to contradict you, but only to add to what you had already said, based on what I have seen in the almost five years I have been a member here.

As to the third criteria, we have all been accused of adding our favourite bands to Prog-Related... Just look at my avatar, and check who added Blue Oyster Cult.

A fire of unknown origin took my baby away!