are The Grateful Dead that prog related?yes / not?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49333
Printed Date: November 29 2024 at 16:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: are The Grateful Dead that prog related?yes / not?
Posted By: zicIy
Subject: are The Grateful Dead that prog related?yes / not?
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 16:45
imho, Deads are deserved a place at PA prog related, or proto prog the list.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 16:54
|
I love the Dead but I don't think they're either Proto or Related other than being one of the most influential psych bands.. they certainly have several excellent progressive albums (Allah, Terrapin) but in order to be ProgRelated you'd have to show in what way they're related to prog ..I think the question would come down this; were the Dead influenced by the English prog movement and is that reflected in their more composed albums between 73 and 77? If so, how much impact is heard or is it more of an internal progression in the group |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 17:05
as you said - " they certainly have several exellent progressive albums" - as well. i like to add Live / Dead and The Mars Hotel (my fav one ).
|
Atavachron wrote:Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 17:10
| yes but many bands did, at one point almost every rock album out of Britain was in some way progressive, but were the Dead related to prog directly in some way? They may have been, but the evidence is thin. |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 17:23
Sorry, but i really dont care about The Grateful Deadīs less influenced by or to that English prog movement. English prog movement is awesome enough without Deads (or even Zappa, or Steely Dan for example). i think these best American (prog or not?) bands/ artists were so different than English bands/artists that an influence was not possible at all, and, also, i dont see any of the reasons why should to be.
|
Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 17:24
|
No but your right about The Mars Hotel now that's a good album but Prog ?? No
------------- 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 17:29
|
structure structure and more structure... with some notable exceptions... structure is a key for prog. Not improvising.. a bad fit in my opinion. Page #29 from the sacred text brought down from the Mt. Sinai of prog by M@X himself.. and interpreted by his priests... 'Prog Related can be stretched to fit damn near any group you can think of the late 60's and 70's... Prog Related is for groups that best illustrate the INFLUENCE of the progressive rock movement on those that were not' ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 17:31
| ^ precisely |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 18:49
| Probably not. Their first couple albums were sort of psychedelic, then they just mixed their love of acid with country rock. They'd jam at their shows, but not much on albums. And they weren't very progressive in nature. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 19:45
|
I'm not intimately familiar with all their albums. I have Anthem of the Sun and Terrapin Station. One psychedelic for sure and the other with a lot of proggy moments.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 20:16
| My problem with considering them prog-related is that their best albums (Workingman's Dead, American Beauty) are anything but. |
Posted By: soundsweird
Date Posted: June 11 2008 at 01:21
| One can count on this same thread being resurrected at least once per year. Talk about beating a Dead horse!! |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: June 11 2008 at 03:46
|
Yep, here we go again.
The search function is your friend.
Just so you know, though, I say no. There isn't much in the way of prog in their music. Innovative, yes. Artistic, yes. Groundbreaking psychedelic, yes. Progressive rock, no.
Don't feel bad though. I'd tell you the same thing about Pink Floyd if they hadn't hired that Gilmour fellow....
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 11 2008 at 07:43
You should be Grateful it only gets resurrected at least once per year. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: June 11 2008 at 07:52
|
GD can be considered inclusion in PA - they definitely deserve to be mentioned in the site like this one.
Concerning the genre category, they can be part of either proto-prog (along with related Jefferson Airplane), prog folk, space-psychedelic, eclectic prog or prog-related...
|
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 04:03
iīv been reading in some article (long time ago, i cant recall from where) that after Deadīs albums as s/t debut, then great albums as Anthem Of The Sun, Aoxomoxoa, and Live / Dead, the band went to indepted to Warner Bros, and although they were recognized as one great live act already, Warner Bros were asking for more commercial albums, so The Grateful Dead with that intention were recorded, (imho, with pleasure as everything what GD did do), that Workingmanīs Dead and then, imho, much better American Beauty the album (awesome Box Of Rain the song, one of the most beautiful songs in whole ROCK ever, imho); then Warner Bros were satisfied. of course i donīt know thatīs true story or not, but seems to be.
btw, i like those albums, but i disagree that Workingmanīs Dead and American Beauty are their best moments. although my fav album by them is studio one (From The Mars Hotel), i think that their best albums are their live albums, as double vinyl Live / Dead (great spacey Dark Star the song - about 20 minutes long), than their second double vinyl s/t live album, from 1971, previously titled by the band as Skullf**k, but this title, unfortunately, was rejected by Warner Bros, also their next, three vinyls (imho, that was very progressive at that time) the live album Europeī72 (that original title "Europe On Five Thousand Dollars At Day" was rejected by Warner Bros too, probably WB was a bit conservative at that time). their gigs were 3 hours or 5 hours long; letīs imagine some great live act of today to play 5 hours on the stage, thatīs no possible, and probably thatīs the reason why "once time per year" one topic about The Grateful Dead is gonna be "resurrected" on this site.
 |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 09:44
|
In my opinion, they absolutely deserve a place here. Proto-prog and prog-related categories are NOT prog, so there's no point of saying "oh, they are not prog". I agree long psyche jams are not the best material for inclusion here but...one prog album merits inclusion in prog-related, let alone a few more facts that can be attached to the band, like groundbreaking/pioneering new sounds and being very eclectic in their style(s) Anyone who was able to compose Terrapin (a lightyear away from spontaneous jam) should be received on PA with open hands; it's not less prog then best Genesis moments. So, there's no point in "stretching" the Prog Related so it could "fit damn near any group you can think of the late 60's and 70's" ... The Dead deserves recognition. ------------- |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 10:21
|
The problem is, Moris, that many site members seem to completely disregard those two small words, 'related' and 'proto', and think that every single band or artist included in our database should automatically be considered prog. I used to be a big supporter of those two categories, until I saw how controversial they could be, and even lead to unpleasant incidents. Personally, the only suggestions for addition to PP or PR that I disagree with are those of artists like Phil Collins, whose sole relation to prog is to have been members of a prog band, but whose solo output has nothing to do with our beloved genre. As for the Dead, I am anything but an expert on them, therefore I trust the judgment of those people who - like you - think they deserve a spot here. |
Posted By: febus
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 11:38
|
I know GRATEFUL DEAD produced some psychedelic albums in 67/68....they added some ''prog'' touches on albums like BLUES FROM ALLAH, but a limit should be drawed to which bands should be added to PA database. Otherwise it's no longer progarchives, but simply rock archives.
I know Jefferson Airplane or the Doors are already included here, so why not next adding the BYRDS, FLYING BURRITOS BROTHERS and other NEIL YOUNG.. I am sure i will be able to find a ''prog touch'' here and there. My point is these bands are not prog., proto-prog whatever you want to name them and should not even be thought of being added on PA.......otherwise you change the name of PA. and open the doors to everyone that play some rock.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:05
the stretching goes back to a comment .. no names.. but it comes from a member of the admin team who decide such things unless M@X unilaterally ok's them because ..well... he is M@X. Some time back the issue of Steely Dan came up for inclusion here... one of the MAIN reasons they have not been accepted here.. though their music fits MANY of the things the geek squads here check off on for deciding it it is prog or not. Thatreason.. probably the main reason they are not even in PR.. when they can easily be put in a fully prog sub-genre (J-R or Xover) is that 'they are not KNOWN to have ever been associated with the prog movement' That rationale cuts to the quick as to why the Dead IS a stretch to be here. The thing people have to understand about PR is that groups are not judged solely on their music.. for many of the reasons that Raff stated... you are in fact talking degress of prog.. associations with prog.. you can't simply judge whether they are prog or not... hell.. they wouldn't be considered FOR PR if they were prog hahahha. Thus the problem.. the problem that has always surrounded PR... it is and cannot ever escape being.. an 'if x then y' or 'if not x.. then no way in hell y' hahhaha. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:28
|
I personally think the Grateful Dead had a huge influence on parts of the early Krautrock scene, so they should at least be in prog-related. Just listen to Ash Ra Tempel's "Freak'n Roll", and you will know what I mean.
-------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:30
what about the Velvet Underground Friede.. as much... or even more so? ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:36
Did somebody say "Beating a "Dead" horse"?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:42
  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:46
ok, but then please to explain to me, if you like to do it-of course, then why, for example, Frank Zappa (one genius, no question) is listed at PA? i saw that above in this topic those guys, who are knowing a lot about the music -miles above more than myself, they are talking about some "influence" by "English prog movement" as about some religion an order as well. so, where is that influence of the bands as Yes, Genesis (Gabriel era, of course), or King Crimson, etc., to Zappaīs music? maybe iīm imbecile one, but i cant hear ANY of that ghost-like an INFLUENCE of above mentioned UK bands to Zappa, and, also, why not, Zappaīs influence to them......where is that influence at Zappaīs greatest albums as, for example, Freak Out, Hot Rats, One Size Fits All, Waka / Jawaka or Joeīs Garage Act I,II&III (my fav album by him, btw), or Man From Utopia??? yea, where is that INFLUENCE, where is that "PROG TOUCH", "IMPACT" with (for example) GENESIS or YES??????????? thanks in advance!
P.S. i presume that ALL of you are concern Frank Zappa as great Prog act as well !
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:58
|
^^^ If x then y arguments don't hold sway here. Grateful Dead influenced some prog, but they are not a prog band and don't belong on the site. |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 16:34
but, Pnoom, i dont asking that GD is prog or not, my question was....you can see.
that "x" &"y" stuff which you like so much i cant understand, sorry.
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 16:38
The Velvet Underground are reflected in the very first Krautrock album, "Psychedelic Underground" by Amon Düül. Even the name is a reference to them. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 16:46
i agree.
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 17:08
You argued that since Zappa is here, GD should be here. That is a poor argument and holds no sway. I think the GD shouldn't be here because lots of bands influenced prog, and that simply isn't enough to make it onto the site. GD are, if anything, tangent to prog, but certainly not prog, prog-related, or proto-prog. |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: June 13 2008 at 02:42
|
If The Dead won't be included I wouldn't lose any sleep, but something else bothers me: yes, I'll use the "if X then Y" or "if not X then not Y argument" because I have to. Let me explain way. All the proposed are passing through the same gateway of evaluation, the same filter so to say, right? Well, neither GD nor VU are prog. They shouldn't be here in prog category, they can both be in related category by some stretch. The question is, what is the site meriting from such inclusions? Personally, I'm surprised so many voted in favour of VU - the problem of them (and all of prog related category) is public perception. Add VU here and there'll be reactions "oh, we started adding punk!". Only a minority will recognise ties with Krautrock..and "suggest new bands" section will be flooded with Blondie, New York Dolls, Television etc. Probably neither should be here. GD were not prog, the "genre" where they belong (and cultural and artistic movement in general= is known, and there's no need to analyse it. That hippy trippy thingie is in a way related to his baby born few years later, called prog rock. Including them here might be bit of a stretch, but on the other hand, why do we have Iron Maiden here? They also belong to the genre that is not prog, but that genre borrowed a lot from prog and is sharing some of the same aesthetics and drama, more than will many a forum member care to admit. I know, I know, they influenced prog metal--but I still think we're dealing with different standards for different bands here, even if our collabs are doing some great work. I love all of the aforementioned bands. Perhaps that's all that is important --not the fact they're here or not. I realized prog related category is a curse here-not because of non-prog content but because of effort involved and wasted energy while we could've been adding and evaluating dozen prog bands. I won't be participating in prog-related discussions for a while...I have some prog bios to upgrade. Damn, what am I doing here? ------------- |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 13 2008 at 17:27
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 00:23
aha..now i understand. well, iīd mentioned Zappa as an example (as i said as well), not as an argument; "x then y" could not be an argument, i agree, but could be very nice and simple an example in some, as Micky said above >'dirty' (lol) thread like this.
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 00:31
|
For the record, I don't really think Zappa belongs here, either, except maybe for his jazz-fusion stuff (Hot Rats, Grand Wazoo, and the like). |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 01:35
ok, thatīs your opinion, iīd to respect that. for the record too, my first concert was Uriah Heep (High and Mighty tour), and iīv been very surprised when i saw UH at PA. iīv been sure all of these years that was hard rock (awesome!) gig. but, anyway, i can feel proud now, the first concert was one great Prog act, nothing less!
 |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 01:59
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 02:25
Being on progarchives doesn't make a band prog  I don't know Uriah Heep, but I'm just saying. |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 03:09
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 03:15
|
GD certainly belong here more than Phish... I recognize Jam Band, as a genre, so they cannot be fully prog, IMO. I also think Prog-related is a dubious genre, but the Dead deserve to be in there if anyone does. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 07:33
then explain my friend.. for the ignorant types among us hahha just how is the Dead.. related to prog... and explain why they should be here... in terms that do not involve 'because someone else is here' . Two wrong don't make a right.. I'm a huge J.A. fan.. and regardless of what Hugues says... I disagree strongly with their inclusion as well... but there is nothing to be done about that. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 02:27
Blues for Allah, for one, is at times just as progressive as anything Phish have done. I have not heard their earlier, more pshychedelic albums I'm afraid, but their reputation as a live band with extended soloing and improvs earns them a place in prog related now, like it or not. Phish is there, and I think Umphrey's McGee is on the site somewhere, so the jam band line has been breached. The father of jam bands must be let in. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 02:55
|
I think Stonie has a very good point here (and yes, Umphrey McGee's are here too, in Jazz-Rock/Fusion). Even if I am not by any means an expert in any of those bands, I've heard Phish compared to the Dead often enough to wonder at the consistency of having one here and not the other. Actually, the main problem with having a Prog-Related category is exactly that, in my very humble opinion... That 'relation' can very easily become like the notorious game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" , i.e. a chain of associations that can often lead away from what we generally consider as prog.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 08:40
love you Stonie.... but I couldn't disagree more with that... so when does the Allman Brothers Band get added.. they have as much to do with Prog.. and being related as the Dead. Yes we have some groups here that ...well... on the surface seem sort of dubious as 'jam bands' There is nothing to do about those. The site has two choices... use the 'if x then y' model and open this site up to all KINDS of bands that have little to no relation to prog simply because other groups are here... or the site can try to make a reasoned case for each individual group..which is why I asked you to try to explain why they should be added... NOT using who is already here as 'proof' that they do belong. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 08:51
| I hope my above point was clear... It wasn't about the rightness of the "if X is here, why not Y?" approach, but rather about consistency (or lack thereof). Either we find a method to the 'madness' that is the whole Prog-Related category, or I'm afraid threads such as this will continue to exist, and sometimes even descend in less than dignified discussions. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 09:19
well darling.. .that has been raised time and time again to the powers that be... and maybe they subscribe to the 'wasted time and effort' theory that Moris mentioned earlier. for the record... I think this is the state of the state of PR... and nothing I've seen here has changed my mind. The sooner people realize it.. the better off those who lose sleep because this group is or is not in PR will be. from Pablo's CSN&Y thread
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 12:26
|
I say pass. I think this is more of a case of "I want to see this band in PA!" than anything having to do with actual influence or prog-relation.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 15:12
I'm talking about consistency. Santana's here. The Dead aren't. Phish is here. The Dead aren't. That is inconsistent. If I cared enough about the Dead, I probably could give you an argument as to why they should be in prog-related, a genre which I think is doing more trouble than good. But the point remains: if Phish are here, a band that essentially is the Dead, then they should be as well. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 17:21
| With all this controversy surrounding the prog related genre, there are bands with much more prog or prog-related songs being denied from prog related than bands being included in "full prog" genres. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 19:05
|
^ That's highly questionable, but you give no examples either of bands denied progrelated status or ones added as full prog that are unworthy ..as far as I know, ProgRelated is not a regular category to be utilized as such, but rather a special area for a small number of artists that were literally related to prog or who were significantly influenced by it. In the case of the Dead, neither is demonstrable, IMO. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 20:17
you are not listening Andrew.. .there is NO consistency to be had in PR additions... this site IS consistent and strives to be comprehensive where it matters...pursuing prog additions to the database... .NOT PR additions. They are targeted additions for various reasons... and the category is not intended to have any and every group that is PR. You agree with the Dead being in PR... but will you be the first to bitch about a band you do NOT think is PR enough. If you don't... you would be one of the very few here that wouldn't.. we see it all the time. Face it.. people have their notions of Prog.. or what is related to prog.. and have demonstrated TIME AND TIME AGAIN.. that they are unable to see past THEIR notions and see that others see things differently. The site doesn't need that kind of sh*t at all... we have enough with fully prog additions Why else do you think the admin team has strict control on Prog Related additions... and I think we all would agree the last thing we want or need our admins to become is 'full-time' PR genre team members screening every Tom, Dick and Harry that got submitted if indeed we strove to be consistent and have every group that was remotely prog related. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 22:21
|
Last time I checked, consistency was a virtue. If consistency only applies to "what really matters," (real prog) then let's get rid of Prog Related! In having the genre Prog Related, the site should have known the sh*t it was getting into. If a band is prog related......wuh....let's put them in prog related! Phish is obviously prog related, because they're there. Nobody should bullsh*t me and say Phish deserve to be here and the Dead don't. It is hypocritical to have Phish here and the Dead not here. Get rid of Phish, and I don't see a problem. They shouldn't be here IMO anyway. But since the site doesn't recognize mistakes and will not remove Phish, for consistency.... Oh wait, we can't be consistent now, can we...  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 00:08
sigh
 You know, I've said it again and again, but no one seems to take much notice -- or perhaps my position is too "extreme": "Prog" or "progressive" is not exactly a known, clearly-delineated form of music. In fact, it's not even a single "form" of music at all. It's very amorphous, very subjective, very much a value judgment made in a unique fashion by each individual here.
THUS "prog related" (or "proto prog") is even more problematic. Despite what many here seem to pretend, the music this site deems "prog" has no clear boundaries. As soon as you try to define and contain or "encircle" it with mere words, in a manner that will meet with broad approval from music fans from 14 to 64, and whose tastes range from death metal, to classic rock, to folk, jazz, classical, rap etc, etc, etc, some listed bands which do not meet that supposed criteria can be easily found.
The exact nature of "prog" (and what is "related" to it ) is thus not worth arguing about. In fact, I sincerely believe it's pointless (if the point of arguing is to reach resolution, or some form of agreement, or to determine who is right, and who is wrong), because it's all so subjective. Beyond its historic origins and applications (inadequate and subjective then, as well) "prog" is merely a value judgment -- much like "good," "bad" "best," "worst" "overrated/underrated" (retch), etc.
Prog Archives: I love a lot of the listed music, and enjoy the virtual company of many of the great people here.
 I care much, much less for the constant bickering and pontification as to "real" prog, inclusion and exclusion, etc. Is prog just complicated rock? What about the jazz, metal and folk stuff? Is it complicated MUSIC? Where's the classical & "prog bluegrass," etc, sections, then? (And then someone will say "Pink Floyd's not complicated."
Just face it: "progressive" is a near-useless way to categorize music (beyond your OWN collection, that is). What is "related" to that huge, ever-expanding, undefined, highly-contentious and subjective thingamabobby? Everything else is!
This will never, ever end, because, you see, none of us really knows what the other means by "prog."
Note to self: If you ever start a music-reviewing site, just list all artists alphabetically, and in the broadest categories possible/practical. Just put the so-called "prog rock" in with the ROCK, the "prog metal' in with the METAL, the "prog folk" in with the FOLK, the "prog jazz" (or whatever we call it) in with the JAZZ, etc.
 Much like record stores -- in their wisdom -- do.
These would-be fine, exacting categories suck, IMO. From what I can see, they're only good for starting arguments, "ghettoizing" music, and dividing music fans. (They help you find "similar" music, you say? The highly-subjective nature of "similar" aside, that's what your EARS, and good reviews are for!)
 How's this for a definition? PROG FAN: a person who obsessively and compulsively over-intellectualizes and analyzes music, pronouncing some to be worthy (and thus "prog") but most as unworthy. No two "prog" fans will ever agree upon these distinctions, however, and they will argue endlessly on the scope of the term they would use to separate their supposedly high-brow music from that of the bleating, sheep-like masses.
(See also proghole, progsnob, file clerk, art rock accountant, dweeb and nerd -- also the related pain-in-the-ass, party-pooper, buzz killer, and insufferable pompous wet blanket. )
But carry on
 -- I know you will!  Indignant, mortally-offended, "just leave then" response posts to follow in 3 - 2 - 1....   ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 00:10
|
Great Post Peter
------------- |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 00:15
this one's for wiki, Peter |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 00:20
^ Aw, I bet you're just saying that to put me off guard, Drew -- I imagine you're writing me a nasty life-threatening PM even now! 
Hmmm... I wonder how a proghole would murder someone? Death via endless bickering? Boredom? Labelling to death?
 Everyone here should just buy one of these (and a truckload of refills!): !Thanks, pal!  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 09:38
It is not questionable. The site has a clear policy to include any new band that just released one album that can be called progressive, and even those who never released any album (unsigned bands). But for older bands, there is a strict policy that denies some bands that have one or two albums that can be called progressive because in general the artist's primary genre is not prog. And they are denied even in the prog-related . BTW, Prog-Related nowadays add only the favorite non-prog bands of some of the "powerful" collabs. That's why, for example, the database of this site has no credibility for me concerning the new prog bands. And instead of fighting hardly against the proposals of old bands, I think something should be done to close the floodgates of new bands. But this would mean that some collabs would have to stop using the genres they take care of to add bands they like and many disagree, like those bands that got 20% yes, 80% no in the polls and were added anyway. But this subject is too hot to be touched and of course the replies will be all in state of denial. But I want to know if there is any collab that had to write an essay explaining why any band deserves to be added in the genre he is "specialist" in the same way you demand the other people to do to prove that a band deserves to be added either in a full prog genre or in a prog-related genre. And just to finish, I don't even know much material from Grateful Dead to care about their addition, but the discussion about this addition created an adequate situation to raise these questions. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 13:27
|
Such a post does you no credit Akin. I had always perceived you as someone who took their appointment as a PR (and thus ambasador for the site) seriously. Just because you disagree with some additions, and feel that others who should be here go unapproved is no excuse for resorting to conspiracy theories and the questioning of the integrity of our SCs.
Your first paragraph is correct, mailto:M@x - M@x has stated that the site policy should eb that if a band has made a prog album, they should be listed. The second paragraph is quite simply imaginative rubbish. There is no such policy, either stated or not. The notion that it is the favourites of powerful Scs is also insulting and wrong. It insults both the collaborators and the Admin team (who oversee the Prog related category). We treat ever request to add a band as Prog related equally. The name or position of the proposer is irrelevant.
The suggestion in your third paragraph that collaborators use genres to add bands they like is also insulting. Each sub-genre has a team who jointly decide on additions. The memebrs of the genre teams take their work very seriously, and take great pride in ensuring bands added to them fit that genre. It is very easy to make uninformed and insulting accusations such as you have done, but interestingly you offer no evidence.
Your fourth para implies that any denial is futile. You have appointed yourself judge and jury. You then appear to suggest that there should be no need for a proposer to offer any form of justification for their proposal.
 You may actually find it reassuring if you were to join a specialist team and see exactly how they work. You would then find that your conspiracy theories are unfounded and hurtful to your co-collaborators involved.
|
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 14:26
Peter, I couldn't agree more with you. I was always against artificial invention of some "sub-genres" and felt that it would be better to have less than to have more sub-categories. Definition and labeling can be a burdensome job and create unneeded frustrations where there is no problem. Even the term prog is questionable as you said, but at least it has a historical reference to 1970s progressive rock.Maybe you are too harsh when defining prog fans but surely some do deserve it. Prog-related category is confusing, but as I remember Max introduced it as a means to expand the addition of other bands that may add value to the PA in terms of attracting more "non-prog" visitors who might be interested to learn of "pure" prog. While I cannot say I entirely agree with this idea, it was up to him to decide. How this all started? Ah, THE GRATEFUL DEAD! Since I am a big fan of the band (but no, not Deadhead  ) and that I own 99% of their official studio and live albums, I think I can throw a penny or two into this thread.Without doubt, GD are one of the greatest rock acts in the history. Regarding their genre/category description, I think it is silly idea since their music is the art influenced by plethora of musical elements and legacy. But, to uninitiated, let me try to put it this way:1. 1967-69, first four albums (s/t debut, Anthem of the Sun, Aoxomoxoa and Live Dead) are genuine psychedelia sprang out of Californian folk-rock, related to JEFFERSON AIRPLANE. There were lots of experimentation with long solos and electronics, both in studio and live context; 2. 1970-73, two studio (Workingmans Dead and American Beauty) and three live (The Grateful Dead, Europe '72 and Bear's Choice), more mainstream country rock and folk rock oriented studio albums with frequent blues and R'n'B covers. In this period they gained reputation of a "jam band" capable of playing long improvisations in concerts. 3. 1973-77, four studio (Wake of the Flood, Mars Hotel, Blues for Allah and Terrapin Station) and a live album (Steal Your Face), they developed an enormous "Wall of Sound" technology for live gigs, resembling the FLOYD's attention to technicalities, these albums contain more elements of jazz and progressive rock, and even traces of electronic/space experiments. Creative peak of the band, at least in terms of studio albums production. 4. 1978-81, two studio (Shakedown Street and Go to Heaven) and two live sets (Dead Set and Reckoning), Declining period, studio albums are weaker containing shorter and radio friendly songs, elements of mainstream American "heartland rock" with usual mixture of country, folk and blues. 5. 1987-90, great come back after 6 years hiatus, commercial peak with album In the Dark. Poor album Built to Last and excellent live set Without a Net with lengthy improvised versions of songs including jazz moments. Now, that's it excluding their enormous unofficial or semi-official (Dick's Picks) and bootleg live records... Anyone can tell me where to file this band? In fact, I don't really care. I just love them  .It is only illogical to have JEFFERSON AIRPLANE here in "proto" category and not to have GD. I will leave you to decide without my explicit answer... |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 15:30
|
Getting back to the specific thread topic, the admin team have never been asked to decide on GD. If someone is wanting to add them and would like the admin team to consider them for PR or PP, just let us know. |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 16:03
You critics would be valid if I had said that every specialist adds what they want. I said that some have added bands contrary to others suggestions (like polls with 80% voting for not adding). I know that are hard workers there and I directed my comment to those who abuse of their position sometimes. I, of course, will not mention their names explicitly for ethical reasons. My fourth paragraph was misunderstood by you. I said that there should be the necessity of every addition to be justified, being it done either by consensus over suggestions or by the private research of the specialists. So instead of battling over the arguments 'I see prog in the songs of band X' and 'I don't see prog in songs of band X', the proposers would write an essay like the ones the specialists had to write to justify an inclusion and if he could make a good essay, the band would be really considered for addition. This measure would also close the floodgates and avoid the fights based on taste. This would make the argument 'if X then Y' less often also because anyone could check all the arguments that led the inclusion of X before proposing Y just because the person thinks they sound the same. About the second paragraph, my argument is not rubbish, because many bands were rejected because one of their albums was prog, but the rest of their catalogue not prog enough. Check the forums and you will spot that very often. About the prog-related additions, they seem to be made according to special collabs taste. If it is so, it doesn't mean that they are in fact done like that, but that the policy for these additions is so bad that they make it seem true and they lead to the most fights of the site. See, every discussion has always the same arguments "I think it is'/'I think it is not' and 'every artist is added according to his own merits'. If these are the main arguments, if you compare a band that was approved and a band that was rejected, you will think that the additions are not based on the arguments (which are always the same, as I said), but on the people that made the arguments in favor or against the inclusion. The conclusion is that the site lacks transparency in its decisions and if nothing is done to increase transparency to the people who is concerned about the site, most of the energy will continue being spent on the same bs and we will see the same kinds of unfertile discussions and topics forever. And for those who felt offended by my previous post, I apologize because I didn't mean to offend the people that work hard for the site, but probably my points were not so clear for you. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 21:50
great breakdown on the albums... and for what it's worth... there is no greater fan on this site.. or hell.. anywhere of J.A. than I am... but I was totally against their inclusion... because even as a new collab at the time.. or maybe I was just distracted and didn't participate in that debate... they open the door to bands that were even less related to prog than the Airplane were.. and they were a stretch ....a BIG stretch of the proto-prog moninker. Same with the insane notion of the Doors addition. The Doors .. proto prog?... sh*t..... However.. they are here. .and there is nothing to do about it... other than draw the line, and remember the rule.. 'two (or three.. or four hahha) wrongs do not make a right' ... so we either draw the line.. and remember just what was prog. .and where it came from.. or we become.. hahha.. consistent... and open the floodgates to EVERYONE with any possible relation to prog out there. Which is a disaster.. for the same people who call for the GD will first first in line to throw stones with a similar stretch of an addition... but that one might be guilty of not being a group they like. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: June 19 2008 at 06:45
Bravo Seyo !
|
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: June 19 2008 at 08:50
|
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 19 2008 at 20:20
not to piss on your idea Seyo... but... hahhaha... and just how were they NOT prog... the group is classified PR for the whole of their career.. ... those albums you mentioned were as prog as damn near anything out there. Hense... the fatal flaw to that idea. If rating individual albums... they groups by proxy, that would give people heart attacks if they were seen anywhere NEAR a fully prog sub-genre. .would be forced to be added in prog subs. Let's be frank.. want to see Ivan's head explode... then add Queen... or a portion of Queen in symphonic. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 03:44
|
If anyone wants me to take this (GD) to the Admin team for a final decision, just let me know. Please only do so though if you are prepared to do the work to add the band if permission is given. (We have a few where permission has been given who have not been added yet).
|
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 04:20
I mentioned Queen only as example because of previous heated debates on their inclusion. I am not really an expert for them, except that I genuinely dislike them
 For me there is nothing "prog" in their music...
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 09:57
This would never work. If we have problems to determine which bands are worthy to the site, imagine to determine which albums are worthy. Taking Beatles as an example, IMO, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album and Abbey Road are what make their inclusion justifiable. Imagine what kind of debates we would have over their inclusion, haven't they been added yet, if we were to determine which albums were worthy inclusion. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 10:16
True. Include every album and let the reviewers decide - that way instead of being stuck with the opinion of a few collaborators who have decided which albums are eligible, you get the opinions of (potentially) 19,000 members through their reviews and ratings. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 17:49
hahhah... I am not a fan either.. but silly me... whether something is prog or not is rather independent of whether I like a group or not. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: June 22 2008 at 04:27
True. I bite my tongue... 
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: June 24 2008 at 12:11
It is not easy to decide whether the Grateful Dead are PP or PR. I believe that both categories are fine. Frankly I would be more for PR. ------------- 
|
Posted By: listen
Date Posted: August 23 2008 at 20:55
| I wanted to suggest the Dead for prog related and searched and found this so I'll post my thoughts here. I definitely hear progressiveness in Blues for Allah and Terrapin Station and a bit in Wake of the Flood too. The dead started experimenting in the studio in the mid 70's, having a more progressive sound with much more structure and longer, multi-part compositions often containing some odd times. I would not say that the dead are a very progressive band in general, just like the beatles. But they did produce some progressive music in the mid 70s. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 23 2008 at 21:02
|
there's little doubt the Dead had a strong progressive, album-oriented phase.. the thing to remember is that many artists - nay, almost every artist by about 1975 - had done or wanted to do some sort of art album.. that's what you did if you wanted to participate in that extraordinary time, heck you might have even sold a few LPs, it was almost a fad (in a good way) ..and so we have to be very careful about who to add to ProgRelated, especially based on only two or three proggie albums, or it would be nearly every rock, jazz and pop recording artist between about 1969 and 1976 |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 23 2008 at 21:55
|
the same answer I gave Raff when she asked me.. whether I thought the ABB (one of my favorite bands of ALL time for those who think I love to add favorites) should be here. Great music.. full of lots of influences... but just not prog... or even related... Proto.... especially for the Dead is always an option.. especially considering the direction the site has taken regarding 'proto' addtions from that particular scene of music in the late 60's ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |