The Stranglers

BaldJean wrote: I only offered that solution because some people are of the opinion they are a punk band, even if I myself absolutely disagree, I gave a list of the criteria why they are a prog band,. Try the same and give a list of criteria why they are supposed to be a punk band. Mind you, I am speaking of musical criteria, not the image they themselves created on purpose to be commercially more successful. Punk is by definition a music with very simple musical structures. The Stranglers, on the other hand, use real polyphony for many of their songs, which is a highly complicated structure. That criterion alone is enough to disqualify  them as a punk band, in my opinion.

I have stated several times that:

1) They are not Punk and never where - I'm not even convinced their image was Punk either - it was purely a marketing ploy and one they entered into with all eight eyes wide open and not foisted upon them by the A&R execs at UA. The Guildford Stranglers came out of the Pub Rock scene of the mid 70s, which was the antithesis of Progressive Rock and eventually became the progenitor of the British Punk scene. Musically The Guildford Stranglers (later The Stranglers IV and finally The Stranglers) were not a perfect fit into that scene either, sounding nothing like typical Pub Rock bands like Brinsley Schwarz, Eddie & The Hot Rods, The 101er's or Nine Below Zero, they were part of the scene in the same way that Lindisfarne were part of the Charisma Prog scene without being Prog themselves. Rattus Norvegicus was a mixture of Pub Rock and pastiche/ersatz Punk - "Down In The Sewer" is a bit of an anomaly, it is a medley of four songs as a mini-concept, which is unusual, but not uncommon (in the post-punk era The Dammed and Siouxsie and The Banshees also did this).

1b) My opinion of The Stranglers music has never been swayed by their "image" - I judge music with my ears, not my eyes...

3) They produced complex music - anyone with ears can hear this, but polyphony and counter-point is a feature of music composition, it is not unique to Progressive Rock and they were not the only band doing this outside the Prog pantheon.

4) They were eclectic - I believe all good music is in someway eclectic - any band that produces music strictly within one genre are little more than a tribute or revival band and will never be as good as "the original" - all forms of Popular music progresses and evolves in someway or other or else it stagnates and becomes stale. One key area of music that they do not appear to draw influence from is in fact Prog Rock itself- almost to the point that they appeared to purposely avoided it.

5) They acknowledged Classical (ie Concert Hall) music  -  while not plunging into the excesses of Symphonic Rock, they  incorporated techniques associated with classical music (notably Baroque)

6) They used "unusual" (for Rock Music) time signatures - as did Blondie, Cat Stevens, Keane, XTC, Sting...

While a check-list is a useful tool in assessing bands it is not the de-facto means for including all bands into the Archive - bands have been excluded that tick all the boxes while others have been admitted that tick none of them. Prog is as much as an aesthetic (but not image!) as it is a pure musical style, which is why we have these interesting and thought provoking debates and why we find it so difficult to produce a water-tight definition. Punk is easier, though clouded by Post-Punk which many see as being a synonymous or at least closely related term, but in reality is far more complex and eclectic - The Stranglers do not fit the Punk definition (and never have) but they do fall into the Post-Punk ethos in pushing the punk attitude beyond merely three chords. In that, they also fall into the looser definition of Art Rock - since post 1977 Art Rock also progressed and evolved beyond what it was recognised as being in the pre-Punk era in the same way that Symphonic Prog evolved into Neo Prog and all multitude of sub-subgenres we now accept as being Prog also evolved from earlier forms of Prog.

Not all Art Rock is Progressive Art Rock in the same way that not all Avant Garde is Progressive Avant Garde; not all Electric Folk Rock is Progressive Folk Rock; not all eclectic Rock is Progressive Eclectic Rock; not all Psychedelic Rock/Pop is Progressive Psyche Rock and not all Jazz/Rock Fusion is Progressive JR/F. A number of Art Rock bands have been excluded from the PA, some of them have been included in Prog Related (Queen, 10cc, Japan etc.) others are still being argued about (XTC, Talking Heads, Sparks, Magazine etc)

For the record, as a voting member of both teams that have rejected The Stranglers for inclusion in the PA database, I voted "No" for Crossover since I do not see how The Stranglers could fit the definition, they were never a 100% Progressive Rock band, neither by musical style, nor by planned intent, and I voted "Yes"  for Progressive Related even though they were not influenced by Prog Rock, nor were they an influence on it, but I do hold however, that they "- 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." - needless to say, I was out-voted on this single point - I accept that decision and will not labour it further.