| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Atavachron 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65603
|
 Posted: January 25 2013 at 02:59 |
 HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
I am of the opinion that just about any 60s band worth a damn could be added to proto-prog or prog-related, but that doesn't mean all of them should. Reserve them for bands who either had a notable influence on prog artists or were regarded as part of the "progressive" scene at the time.
|
it's a good point
|
 |
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104
|
Posted: January 25 2013 at 04:13 |
|
As a huge fan I must admit to feeling a tad confused, when I first learned that GD weren't on PA. I then proceeded to get involved with the site - got to learn up front the distinctions between progressive and prog, even if it was a complete mindf*ck at times, and then finally realising why they weren't here.
It's the same sort of discussion we've been having about Philip Glass, even if he is miles away from The Dead. Either way, it boils down to what this particular site focuses on, and that is prog - not progressive music.
GD will never stand a chance in psych space here, and rightfully so too, because they're not a prog band. They were a progressive blues outfit, who then took things way out there and beyond, especially in a live setting(I loooove Dick's Picks) - yet I can't see them included on PA other than in proto and related. I feel much the same about Edgar Broughton Band actually...
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Evolver
Special Collaborator
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482
|
Posted: January 25 2013 at 06:43 |
Yes, the Dead had a few prog albums. "Blues For Allah" is one that I haven't seen mentioned here.
But of their (now) masssive catalog, only a few albums truly qualify.
For the same reason that a jazz artists with many albums, but one ore two fusion albums, is also not listed here.
Phish, although heavily Dead influenced, has many other references. For instance, they also incorporated Zappa into their sound.
|
|
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65603
|
Posted: January 25 2013 at 20:22 |
|
^ there was a time around here when one full prog album was enough to get you a spot somewhere on PA
|
|
octopus-4
Special Collaborator
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14550
|
Posted: January 26 2013 at 01:50 |
|
I think the rule is the same
|
|
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13794
|
Posted: January 26 2013 at 06:22 |
octopus-4 wrote:
I think the rule is the same |
So do I, although it is so convoluted these days that I don't think anybody knows. Good example I can think of off the top of my head is Miles Davis, whose extensive discography is on the site, but, out of those, how many are prog? Three, four at best?
For what it is worth, I do not think that GD belong here, for the simple matter they were never a prog or progressive rock band, were never a part of that "scene", even to the point that they were never art rock in the sense we used to use the word. Dean is also correct in that the prog related badge could, in theory, extend to so many acts that it would overtake the prog section itself.
I am, in writing this, fully aware before people reply that this argument could be extended very widely. The Who are a very good example. A great band, yes. One of my favourite bands. Progressive in the sense that they pushed quite a few barriers and Townsend experimented with new sounds, yes. But a progressive rock band, even prog related? No, IMO. They were a rock band, born out of an explosion of blues based music in the 1960's. And before people come back with Tommy, yes it was a concept album, I know, but it was not a progressive rock album. The phrase hadn't even been invented at the time of release. Townsend used the phrase rock opera.
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
Rivertree
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions
Joined: March 22 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 17650
|
Posted: January 26 2013 at 06:43 |
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
I am of the opinion that just about any 60s band worth a damn could be added to proto-prog or prog-related, but that doesn't mean all of them should. Reserve them for bands who either had a notable influence on prog artists or were regarded as part of the "progressive" scene at the time.
|
THIS!! 
|
|
|
|
Jonathan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 18 2012
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 201
|
Posted: January 26 2013 at 06:49 |
I think Prog-Related would be a better place for GD.
They belong here more than most Bands in the Proto-Prog Section, IMHO.
(After 1967, There was no more Proto-Prog in America or England to me)
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: January 26 2013 at 07:04 |
lazland wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
I think the rule is the same |
So do I, although it is so convoluted these days that I don't think anybody knows. Good example I can think of off the top of my head is Miles Davis, whose extensive discography is on the site, but, out of those, how many are prog? Three, four at best?
For what it is worth, I do not think that GD belong here, for the simple matter they were never a prog or progressive rock band, were never a part of that "scene", even to the point that they were never art rock in the sense we used to use the word. Dean is also correct in that the prog related badge could, in theory, extend to so many acts that it would overtake the prog section itself.
I am, in writing this, fully aware before people reply that this argument could be extended very widely. The Who are a very good example. A great band, yes. One of my favourite bands. Progressive in the sense that they pushed quite a few barriers and Townsend experimented with new sounds, yes. But a progressive rock band, even prog related? No, IMO. They were a rock band, born out of an explosion of blues based music in the 1960's. And before people come back with Tommy, yes it was a concept album, I know, but it was not a progressive rock album. The phrase hadn't even been invented at the time of release. Townsend used the phrase rock opera. |
Perceptive post certainly. I'm also a big Who fan and just like Steve, I can point to their innovation and experimentation with longer forms, subject matter and structures etc but cannot defend their inclusion in PA (they're here because presumably some collab(s) succeeded in getting their favourite rock bands admitted, which applies for Sabbath to boot - who I also adore) Unfortunately I'm completely biased re the Grateful Dead, and care not a jot for their progressive credentials as for me, they represent a war crime against silence.
|
|
Jonathan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 18 2012
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 201
|
Posted: January 26 2013 at 07:12 |
I agree with you on "The Who", They maybe put out ONE Album before the Prog Movement Started in England.
(I think Procol Harum started over there. That's just me though.)
But they don't belong in Proto-Prog.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Grateful Dead for psych/space rock
