The Flaming Lips

Desoc wrote: stonebeard wrote: I'm not, and it's easily their most progressive styled album too. Yoshimi has prog flourishes, At War With the Mystics has a few prog songs, and Embryonic does to and with a psychedelic prog aesthetics, but IMO it doesn't outweigh how very unprog they were from 83-96.   I thought there was a rule saying that one prog album is sufficient?

Yes, but they also enter in the "controversial additions" rule too.

Desoc wrote: stonebeard wrote: I'm not, and it's easily their most progressive styled album too. Yoshimi has prog flourishes, At War With the Mystics has a few prog songs, and Embryonic does to and with a psychedelic prog aesthetics, but IMO it doesn't outweigh how very unprog they were from 83-96.   I thought there was a rule saying that one prog album is sufficient?

Maybe there is, but I first listen to the rule in my brain telling me to disregard really dumb rules like that.

Logan wrote: stonebeard wrote: Desoc wrote: stonebeard wrote: I'm not, and it's easily their most progressive styled album too. Yoshimi has prog flourishes, At War With the Mystics has a few prog songs, and Embryonic does to and with a psychedelic prog aesthetics, but IMO it doesn't outweigh how very unprog they were from 83-96.   I thought there was a rule saying that one prog album is sufficient? Maybe there is, but I first listen to the rule in my brain telling me to disregard really dumb rules like that. A number of suggestions have been nixed, or haven't gone anywhere, because of complete discography issues (concerns about that).  I don't think it's a set rule.  People disagree on that issue.  I'm in the one "prog" album should suffice camp, but would like to see an album, rather than band-based category, for ones with very limited prog albums in extensive discographies (those that are excluded because of complete discography issues).  I think it's good to strive to be as complete a database of prog albums as possible (and I don't think of bands as prog per se. It's the band' albums/ music that count/s). A problem with, say, a sole prog album based category (or ones with only two out of many) is that people will disagree about excluding other albums and a band may release more so-called prog albums in the future; however, I think that if it's determined that the band has released more prog albums then a new entry is created in a Prog "genre" category, which includes the bio, and the album is then removed from the album based category which would work similar to the Various Artists category. Whether Flaming Lips shpould be here or not, I really disagree with the idea of disallowing a band entry primarily because of the music it made during the first half (or so) of its career.  Like I said before, I think in this case it's far more important where the band ended up.  For that matter, I wouldn't exclude bands that started prog but quickly turned pop, or ones that did, say, progressive jazz, turned progressive JRF, then turned soul.

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Logan wrote: stonebeard wrote: Desoc wrote: stonebeard wrote: I'm not, and it's easily their most progressive styled album too. Yoshimi has prog flourishes, At War With the Mystics has a few prog songs, and Embryonic does to and with a psychedelic prog aesthetics, but IMO it doesn't outweigh how very unprog they were from 83-96.   I thought there was a rule saying that one prog album is sufficient? Maybe there is, but I first listen to the rule in my brain telling me to disregard really dumb rules like that. A number of suggestions have been nixed, or haven't gone anywhere, because of complete discography issues (concerns about that).  I don't think it's a set rule.  People disagree on that issue.  I'm in the one "prog" album should suffice camp, but would like to see an album, rather than band-based category, for ones with very limited prog albums in extensive discographies (those that are excluded because of complete discography issues).  I think it's good to strive to be as complete a database of prog albums as possible (and I don't think of bands as prog per se. It's the band' albums/ music that count/s). A problem with, say, a sole prog album based category (or ones with only two out of many) is that people will disagree about excluding other albums and a band may release more so-called prog albums in the future; however, I think that if it's determined that the band has released more prog albums then a new entry is created in a Prog "genre" category, which includes the bio, and the album is then removed from the album based category which would work similar to the Various Artists category. Whether Flaming Lips should be here or not, I really disagree with the idea of disallowing a band entry primarily because of the music it made during the first half (or so) of its career.  Like I said before, I think in this case it's far more important where the band ended up.  For that matter, I wouldn't exclude bands that started prog but quickly turned pop, or ones that did, say, progressive jazz, turned progressive JRF, then turned soul.   A case in point.... This is precisely why I was totally against Dragon being here. Flaming Lips are way more progressive than Dragon who released one or 2 prog albums than everything after was totally pop and Australians will tell you that if you mention Dragon. Australians or New Zealanders would laugh at the suggestion of Dragon being prog. I could not convince them by telling them about the two 70s albums they released as it was evident that every band in the 70s were churning out that stuff as it was a time of experimentation and music was at its most progressive - the 70s was th egolden era of prog, look at the albums from artists. Many Australian or NZ bands were progressive sounding and yet they will never be here on PA because the bulk of their material is pop. I agree with that. I was surprised at Split Enz being here. But they did release 2 very proggy albums again.   So with Flaming Lips, altho I listened to their 'Pink Robots' album and did not like it, I can see it was a concept album with proggy moments. Their other output is not conceptual until we get to Embryonic and some recent material. They are worth considering for those albums.   I have been thinking about this 'only one prog album' rule and am wondering if it were possible to have a section for one off prog albums, or prog albums from non prog artists. I think the prog mag does this in "its prog Jim but not as we know it", and its worth checking out those albums. Even a section with prog albums from non prog artists would make a difference so those Dragon albums could easily be there, the Flaming Lips or Smashing Pumpkins, Kiss "The Elder", some of the proggy stuff from Australian 70s might be included. That way any one who is suggesting a band just cos of one prog album could be included. It would make an interesting discussion point, but at least these prog albums could be reviewed and be recognised and it would mean this is definitely THE place to come to find EVERY prog album on the planet.

Interesting thoughts, and you might to share some of them in this topic.  I haven't given up on the idea of an album based category (we already have an album based category with Various Artists):

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55576

I've talked about it in some other topics too, which I can't find, but there are many that could be included in such a category: William Sheller's Lux Aeterna, Donald Byrd's Electric Byrd and a whole host of ones I'm forgetting. Jean Claude Vannier was another candidate but I added him to Eclectic.  Perhaps Serge Gainsbourg and others.... Bob James, though I think he had various albums suitable for JRF, would be another to include because of concerns about complete discography.  Dittoi for Herbie Mann.... There are a lot of examples in JRF because many "hopped" on the progressive Fusion bandwagon for a time.  Manset who is in Prog-Related because of concerns about the complete discography could have been respresented ina true Prog album category.

One thing that I differ on, though I understand the idea, is that I don't think of artists as being Prog but instead albums, and music itself.  Many artists in Prog categories made prog and non-prog music (or as I now wnat to call it, progum (i.e. prog umbrella music) and non-progum as well as progum-related music.  Question of quantity, but I just don't like to think of artists themselves as prog or non-prog, but instead particular music that was created by the artists (or periods of the artists).  I find simpler to think of music istelf as prog and not artists, and it can cause confusion when one refers to an artist itself as prog that made non-prog albums.  For example,

"Genesis is Prog."
"No, Genesis is Pop". 
"You must not have listened to the right Genesis, cause it's Prog"
"No, you must not have listened to the right Genesis, cause its Pop".

stonebeard wrote: Logan wrote: Whether Flaming Lips shpould be here or not, I really disagree with the idea of disallowing a band entry primarily because of the music it made during the first half (or so) of its career.  Like I said before, I think in this case it's far more important where the band ended up.  For that matter, I wouldn't exclude bands that started prog but quickly turned pop, or ones that did, say, progressive jazz, turned progressive JRF, then turned soul. I agree with that, and I actually would support the inclusion of any band if they cut a fully prog album, or even more so followed it with a second or third prog album. The problem if The Flaming Lips did not do that. I even overstated how prog Zaireeka is. It's very jazzy at times, and even trolls the listener with its obscure weirdness, but I would have to shudder to say it's a "prog album." Then, right after that album, they cut The Soft Bulletin, which is a completely pop album. A symphonic one, a modern day beach boys, but it's a pop album. Then Yoshimi combined the symphonic pop with glitchy, electronic aspects, which I'm still not sure I'd call prog even on "Approaching Pavonis Mons" or "In the Morning of the Magicians." At War with the Mystics had a couple more clear cut prog moments (second half of "It Overtakes Me," "Pompeii Am Gotterdamrung," "The Magician Turns On...") but it's hard to say whether it's any sort of prog when it shares just as many similarities with jazz and space pop (which I think is a somewhat recognized genre). And then there's Embryonic. Whatever that is. You could take all of the songs in the Lips' career that have fairly significantly "prog rock"-styled music and fit them all on to one album, unless the psychedelia of Embryonic is confused with prog. And somehow 1 decently prog album out of 11 doesn't make sense to me for their inclusion. Plus I honestly don't want to see the Lips' back catelog mangled in reviews by people who were expecting something even close to prog.

I understand now.  Thanks.

Gordy wrote: So: in the interim since "Embryonic" was released, they've done a number of collaborations, put out some EPs encased in skulls and fetuses made of gummy bear, and these:

isn't it enough for an evoluted band to be added as crossover?
listen to this and be sure