Exclusionsist or Inclusivist?

Dean wrote: Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote: rogerthat wrote: lol, I saw this coming the moment I wrote it. Maybe I just recall more hit songs of these one hit wonders from the 80s.  Or maybe they have got more sustained airplay on radio/TV.   I think the honest answer is that they were better and thus more memorable. The 1970s singles charts were dire even through rose-tinted spectacles. I disagree.  Well, that was pretty pointless.

Edited by Svetonio - April 14 2014 at 18:11

Svetonio wrote: LOL but I really don't need a glasses to see (hear) that unquestionable truth that 70s hits were miles above better than the hits in (your favourite?) 80s. ..just as a decore...

uduwudu wrote: Anyway, isn't a 9 album experience better than a 1 album of hodge podge of styles which would annoy and divide the reasonable and balanced prog archives views? Who knows? Perhaps it was a Scottish exec who thought this up. Tales probably should have been 4 different albums rather than the condensed edited form everyone knows and loves without equivocation for 40 years.

Nope, I guess that one man's hodge podge is another's eclectic blend of a number of disparate musical styles that does not impinge on the identity or originality of its creators and conspires to be more than the sum of its parts? (off the top of my sleepy head while overdosed on flu medication)
e.g I find say, the Nice playing jazz considerably more interesting and innovative than jazzers playing jazz and the idea of sitting through 9 specialist albums where execs have decided beforehand just how limited by strict stylistic conventions the musical boundaries are gonna be, would bore me rigid.

Tales should have been an EP with maybe just The Revealing Science of God included (together with an advisory sticker slapped over the title warning consumers: may contain tracers of Pot Noodle

Atavachron wrote: ExittheLemming wrote:   Here's the plan: the execs thought that if they could foist an engineered brand loyalty onto consumers akin to that experienced by the followers of sports teams then they could sell snow to Eskimos. Artists like Hendrix, the Nice and King Crimson (one of those is not a Brit, rabid sniffer dogs at Ethnocentral Police HQ) exemplified the belief that music was an indivisible whole and that attempts to draw artificial boundaries between its league of nations was the antithesis of any trailblazing pioneering ethos. Once the nascent marketplace realised the leverage to be gained by a demarcation process kicking in, it foisted this engineered 'brand patriotism' onto its consumers which would lead to the 'phony' wars that are still being waged from within the forums of this very website. In short PRE circa 1980 you could hear Jazz, Blues, Rock, Metal, Classical, Folk, Ballad, Avant Garde and formless weird sh*t on the one album. POST circa 1980 you had to buy at least 9 different albums. I'm Scottish, I care deeply about unnecessary expenditure.... As am I, and if it's not Scottish...  well anyway--  good post my subniveal friend, however something I've notice about almost all those genres is that they each have hardcore fans; authenticists who feel, understandably so, that the "folk" Jethro Tull (or even Steeleye Span) play has something important missing.   Same goes for Mahavishnu's "jazz", ELP's "classical", and Zep's "blues".   It sounds artificial to them and I have little doubt it indeed does.

Well, this is the difference between roots and progressive (adjective.) Although jazz and classical are art forms based on roots music anyway. It's a new authenticity and many people hate the idea of change and progressive (adj) is all about change.

What's with the obsession with 'pot noodles' ????

Oh ! That sort of 'pot' noodle - silly me..........
......yes indeed, plenty of that on Topographic, and that's what makes it soooo enjoyable !! Though I couldn't see Wakeman toking on a J.

No, Prog ceased circa 1969.

 ^ You can't, but you can show a musical lineage from the extant recordings made which shows influence.   However, you are correct in that most progressive musicians would still be making progressive music even if Floyd or Crimson had never existed.

King Crimson776 wrote: I don't think this question was phrased very well. It clearly makes the first option sound more viable. My answer is a mix of both. Prog has "changed", in that it has explored new areas within the boundaries of the style, but the definition of progressive music is not infinitely flexible to the point of including things that sound nothing like the original progressive bands. There is clearly a broad genre called 'prog', and there is no reason to make that term meaningless by forcing it to encompass all innovative, left-of-center rock music just because the term "progressive" literally fits that. There is no need for a term to encompass all substantially innovative rock music, period. Just for an example, I think Kayo Dot is a fine inclusion due to the avant-prog element (probably a candidate for crossover), but I think adding post-rock in general was several steps too far.

Good post certainly which I probably agree with. Yes, I could have phrased the question better but it was chosen to be deliberately provocative and indicate an either/or response was required. I wanted people to kick back against this false dichotomy and many have done so to date which is encouraging. You are correct that it's not black and white and is a bit of both i.e. Prog as broadly understood in the PA sub genres must have limits that cannot be reasonably expected to encompass every new facet and development in contemporary rock that is deemed progressive. This of course begs the question (which I implied so poorly): where do we draw these limits or do the PA members feel that doing so would be restrictive and counter productive?

I'm not familiar enough with anything that could be considered post rock to comment on its suitability for inclusion on PA or otherwise.

Wait up - I like Mogwai well enough but I'm not sure I can hear any Prog in there (maybe some Kraut, Industrial, Noise, Avant, a smidgin of Symph? and Ambient yes) Tortoise are also a band I like but sound like a retro futuristic supergrounp of (Fritz) Lang, (Raymond) Scott and (Harry) Partch.


Edited by ExittheLemming - April 17 2014 at 02:47

ExittheLemming wrote: Tom Ozric wrote: Oh ! That sort of 'pot' noodle - silly me.......... ......yes indeed, plenty of that on Topographic, and that's what makes it soooo enjoyable !! Though I couldn't see Wakeman toking on a J. Yep, Rick appears to have been an old school beer monster in his youth (which may have led to his feeling somewhat excluded from the recreational core activity of his band mates at around this time? - there is no more tortuous and futile an exchange of ideas than that which takes place between the intoxicated and the stoned)

... Parliamentary debates notwithstanding. Of course they could be both (stoned or intoxicated as well as... etc...) Sorry, could not resist that. Let's get back to defending false dichotomies. There I go again... God, I can't seem to get away from any opportunity to Sl*g off those which seek power over us.



OK, just to add fuel to the fire how does one tell that say prog rock however well, quasi or ill defined, has progressed? From what to what? Making it as good as the Prokofiev playing hear at the moment?

IOW accepting that in the late 70s there was a collapse in prog rock, was there a progression consequently, how are these things identified? To me most symphonic rock (not metal) became a style of playing (inclusivistically oriented)  rather than a sense of hearing something new (exclusionistically oriented). Should this be tried? Is it commercially viable? Should an audience be challenged?

Btw I am not that certain about the i and e word variations I have used above. As a non-expert at everything I'll stand be corrected.