The Strange Omissions of the Archives

I remember the times when everybody could add whatever he/she wanted. Friede and I added High Tide and Nik Turner, for example, without having to ask any committee

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: dr wu23 wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: I feel like everyone is just now throwing out bands they can argue/expand the definition of "progressive rock" with, simply for a reason to have more content on the site to debate over, lol. I disagree vehemently on Grateful Dead being on PA or considered progressive in any fashion. That is the definition of a blind squirrel finding a nut (in band form) to me. Almost like everyone wants to blend Psych, Proto, etc. together and start blending the "grey" areas versus being so black and white (both have their faults IMHO). I.E. "Having your PA cake and eating it too". <span style="line-height: 16.5455px;"> dr wu23 wrote: It's that old discussion..again. What is and isn't 'real prog rock'.</span><div style="line-height: 16.5455px;">And it will go one for another 7.5 years or 75 depending on the life of the forum.<div style="line-height: 16.5455px;">;)<span style="line-height: 16.5455px;"> </span><div style="line-height: 16.5455px;"> <div style="line-height: 16.5455px;">Exactly. We'll still be here in 7.5 years though, I have a theory . I'll probably be dead by then.... ....I just turned 68..... I do agree that the Dead... while a great and interesting band.... is not prog rock....adding them would open the door to all the ones named above , so then why dot simply make this a  rock web site and forget the prog rock pretensions and categories. I mean The Beatles are here...The Who...Led Zep, etc, etc...bands I have never considered true prog rock....nor even prog related for that matter. So why not add XTC, The Dead, etc..? At this point does it matter? Dr. Wu gets it. Where do we draw the line? I feel like once we start debating "what's proto?" we enter a slippery slope, and next thing you know we're AllMusic.com 2.0. If everyone wants to add more just due to boredom, maybe start another site or forum and leave this as it was meant to be? JMHO.

Here's the problem. Back in the day, prog bands were experimenting and there was no definition of prog. They had complete freedom. What we've done over the years is classify and compartmentalize prog so much that we have, to a degree, lost the original spirit of what prog is. Now, if a musician wants to play prog or any music, they know they must become clones of whoever is flavor of the month or pack it in. Playlisters will say "That sounds great, but can you make it sound more like Cake By the Ocean"? I previously mentioned bands that experimented in different ways but because they didn't sound like Rick Wakeman (who is the cat's pajamas), they were cast out of the prog category. Likewise it is difficult to classify the Grateful Dead. We have Frank Zappa here and the Grateful Dead are certainly related in their free form manner. There is no single definition of prog. You think yours is right, but who are you to tell everyone else what's prog and what's not?

By compartmentalizing prog, bands become forced into chasing genre and subgenre pigeonholes, and you can kiss the true spirit of prog goodbye. Then, they lose the freedom to really experiment.

It is ok I think to classify songs by genre but classifying prog bands by genre is, to a degree, like putting handcuffs on them.

Since we are in a world now that just has to do this, I would be careful about wielding your chainsaw when cutting bands out of PA. The scalpel approach is better. As I said, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Prog to me is a loosely defined idea, and more of an approach to music rather than a ticked box.

Archiving music is a double edged sword. Once you've tagged it as this or that, you've put it in a box. This has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that there is some organized way of retrieving music and this has great value. But, since we're human, the disadvantage is that we're inevitably going to leave people who deserve to be in the box out of the box, while including people in the box who should be in a different box. The question is how do we improve on this process? Multiple tags and use of degree can help. Bridges among music genre and music artists help. Algorithms on Jango tell me who else might be interested in my song based on related artists that people are listening to. Having artists review and give input could help in some cases. Then, cutting people completely in or out goes away, because the classification system becomes more robust. I picture a nucleus that becomes more diffuse as well as a network of interconnected nodes.

Edited by Lewian - August 02 2019 at 12:03

I voted against Baker because we were not adding people who were much better at current African music than him. For example Fela Kuti, Yssou N Dour, King Sunny Ade, Franco, Ghetto Blaster etc etc.
Why should Baker be added for playing African music over the real deal.

Easy Money wrote: I voted against Baker because we were not adding people who were much better at current African music than him. For example Fela Kuti, Yssou N Dour, King Sunny Ade, Franco, Ghetto Blaster etc etc. Why should Baker be added for playing African music over the real deal.

Fela Kuti +1; however, I’m not sure he was progressive within the context of, say, 1970s African music. Assuming he was, I’d love to see him on PA.

Spyro Gyra and the Yellowjackets

By band, I tend to agree. By song, their fusion work may fit the bill. So, some jazz rock fusion = yes and some = no. Some go in the tent and some don't. Then, the camel sticks its nose in the tent. Pretty soon it has its head inside the tent. Then it's body. Next thing you know the camel's inside the tent and we're out of the tent.

If Kenny G decided to do fusion, would he be allowed in the tent? That could be a good test. I'm going to email him.

What about William Shatner's album "Seeking Major Tom"?

Edited by Jaketejas - August 02 2019 at 14:08