Can't a band be good without being considered progressive?

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66462&KW=XTC&PID=3616148#3616148" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66462&KW=XTC&PID=3616148#3616148

But they were NOT a prog rock band, in spite of the fact that alumni now play in prog rock bands.

In fact, they were part of the new wave movement that was supposed to have done away with prog.

Why do we keep getting these suggestions?

 

This is the problem with the label and definition ... XTC, was a very experimental and temperamental style of music that is hard to define. I never thought they were anywhere near "new wave" because they don't fit in any area that we can possibly define ... !!!

 

But the period from "English Settlement" to "Mummer", to "The Big Express" to "Skylarking" , is excellent and rivals ANY band that we consider "progressive" in their continual esperimentation and work.

 

I can have fun with all the musical details in the definition of "progressive", "prog" or "metal" ... because XTC has done it all, inside out, backwards and forwards, and all that ... and we ignored it on purpose because of our definition!

 

Fun band to listen to with some unbelievable excellent things, that make some progressive bands sound like sh*t!

Lots of bands were and are experimental (whatever the hell that means in this day and age when it comes to music), being experimental is not the sole province of Progressive Rock, (it isn't even a defining characteristic of Progressive Rock), nor is being original, or witty, or eclectic, or expansive, or avant, or alternative, or any other epithet you care to name. XTC were never a Prog Rock band.

 

XTC were a great band, Moulding and Partridge are a gifted guys and we should celebrate them for what they are, not try and shoe-horn them into this site.

 

 (There were also painfully loud when I saw them, but still does not make them "metal" )

 

And if you don't like our definitions then (quite frankly) go elsewhere where the definitions are more to you liking.

 

C'est la vie.........

 

 

I cannot be held responsible for the idiocy of others, I am afraid.

Personally, I would get rid of prog related altogether, and scrap most of the sub genres as well. This argument, it is fair to say, has been somewhat controversial, and has got me in trouble with a number of collabs. It is not down to me, ultimately m@x runs the site.

None of the above detracts from one simple truth. XTC are not prog, not even related to it. In fact, your tiger with toothache is closer, dear chap. Perhaps we should send him for eval?

I have no idea why Talking Heads are here, didn't even know. Seems bizarre to me but what do I know? Have never heard the others so can't comment.

But even in Prog Related....XTC.....well i don't see it.

Your hyperbole-laden histrionics do you proud, if perhaps tending to paint an image not dissimilar to that which you are lambasting, though to be honest I don't see how a simple "No, they're not Prog" constitutes fire and brimstone evangelical sermonising. However, does not alter the fact we do not include band "Y" just because band "X" is here.

 

We could include every "clever" band that ever existed and rename ourselves the Quite Interesting Music Archives since then Prog Related would contain more bands and artists than all the other subgenres and categories put together, and if we go there people will still decry that their favourite band isn't listed for not being quite interestingly clever enough so expansionism would dictate that we rename ourselves Not Manufactured Pop Archives until such a day as Justin Bieber records a duet with Jon Anderson and we become another RYM clone.

 

But we do none of those things - we are selective - (picky if you like) - with the idea of keeping the Prog Related section to a representative size such that it does not dominate any other subgenre here... There is no empirical formula to this, or even any planned or stated intent - somewhere around 150 bands seems big enough (yeah, there are possibly some I would cull (an unknown and/or obscure band has no place in PR for example) and possibly some I would move to other subs and there are perhaps some bands that should perhaps be there and some that perhaps should not, it's not an exact science - it's like sorting your offspring (or family or friends) in order of preference, we can do it, it doesn't mean we should). There are some bands that a strong case could be made to include, (like The Stranglers, Magazine or Wire), but that still does not mean they can or will be included, infact since it is merely a representation it could even argued that if band "X" is here we don't need to add band "Y" (thinking specifically Megabreth vs Metalicacaca)

 

 

2. I see no reason to include them in the archives of a site focused on progressive rock

3. I still love them anyway.

4. They are not a "glaring omission".  That implies that everyone but you is too stupid to realize that they haven't been added, and that's a mean thing to say.

Nothing to be gained in complaining now since they'll not be removed, but as near as I can tell Oingo Boingo were added because

 

1) a collaborator wanted to write reviews of some CDs in his collection; and

2) an early version of the group (under a different name) was a somewhat clever multidisciplined 'troupe' back in the pre-MTV 70s, (mistakenly) seen as progressive just because they weren't mainstream.

 

The problem with #2 is that 99% of their recorded musical output post-dates their Hollywood hippy days.  This is somewhat akin to adding Starship on the reputation of Jefferson Airplane.  Frankly I could make a better case for Psychedelic Furs or Sniff n' the Tears.

 

...

 

 

That works for me......and questioning the nature of what bands are prog or not is part of the reason people post and are interested in the forum. And I don't think any of the collaborators should feel offended if their decisions are questioned.

There are two arguments being made here as to why NOT to include XTC.

The first is that they are not "prog."  Yet when I asked Max and Rony what the "qualifications" were (during the battle over Queen), they indicated that even the little that Queen DID offer was enough.  This was also their defense of adding 10CC, based solely on the strength of one song (One Night in Paris).  (Again, no aspersions on 10CC, whom I LOVE - see my reviews.)

In this regard, XTC has at least half a dozen compositions that are as "proggy" as anything Queen or 10CC has done.  So by Max and Rony's OWN STANDARDS, XTC should be included.

The second argument being made against XTC's inclusion is the "reverse" of this: i.e., that other bands who ARE here don't belong here (or should at least be re-classified), so XTC should not be included.

This is a truly spurious argument.  First, those other bands ARE here (whether some of us believe they should be or not), so following that logic, XTC SHOULD be here.

As importantly, it took me a while to understand Max and Rony's logic in adding Queen.  Ultimately, it had less to do with whether Queen was actually "prog" than with increasing the number of people who visited PA: i.e., add a band, and the fans of that band might (or will) come to PA to review and/or discuss them.  And although I originally considered this cynically mercenary of them, I grew to understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with it.  After all, a site cannot maintain itself if it does not get new visitors/members.  That is, if PA were to hold to a very rigid definition of "prog," it would ultimately end up with a "stagnated" membership, and might not survive.

So Max and Rony broadened their definition, and added new categories to include proto-prog, prog-related, crossover prog, etc.  It almost does not matter which of those categories a given band fits in, or even whether those categories "make sense."  What matters is that by increasing the number of bands they can "reasonably" include on a "prog" archive, they bring in new visitors and new members, allowing the site to continue to be viable.

 

I think it possibly does work when we broaden our remit to include whole subgenres of artists, such as Math Rock, but the times we can do that are rare and I can't see how we can shoe-horn a made-up post-punk progressive subgenre into the current scheme of things along side Neo Prog to account for all those 80s bands that did clever things with music, because I don't see how XTC can be justified without including The Stranglers, Magazine, The Sound,  PIL, Random Hold, Comsat Angels, Icicle Works, Slow Children, The Cure, The Banshees, Passage, Tuxedomoon, World Of Twist, Dukes Of The Stratosphere, Head Of David, Chrome, Gentlemen Without Weapons, The Psychedelic Furs and The Punishment of Luxury (to name a few - there's plenty more where they came from).

The danger of opening up to a progressive artist like XTC who popped up with post-punk, is that you would have to include so many others, just like Dean says. XTC weren't half as experimental as say Wire or Chrome - and they don't really fit in here either. Prog is not a badge of honour - it's a style of music, which this particular website deals with. If it dealt with progressive music then sure we could have Infected Mushroom, Ol' Dirty b*****d, Scott Walker, Prokofiev, Rage Against The Machine, Sun Ra, Boris, Edith Piaf, Sarah Vaughn, Sonic Youth, FSOL, F*ck Buttons, Pharoah Sanders, AMM(Music), Edgar Varese, Sergio Leone, Stravinsky, Mano Chao, Prodigy, Bob Marley, Type O Negative, Aphex Twin, Cannibal Corpse, Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, Cream, Funkadelic, Flamin Lips, James Brown, Cocteau Twins, Wu Tang Clan, The Trashmen, The Orb, John Lennon, Neelix, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Neil Young and indeed XTC up in this mother........but then again we might as well call it Music Archives without Mariah Carey and Sha-na-na.

Nomeansno I think deserves to be here more than any of these people.

When the site was first established the categories of Prog Related and Proto Prog were not present. Many of the bands that are now in those categories were in Art Rock at that time (even Vanilla Fudge ).

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20050408190432/http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?style=3" rel="nofollow - http://web.archive.org/web/20050408190432/http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?style=3  

The newest argument is, "Well, if we let XTC in, then we have to let in lots and lots of other bands."  One could approach this from either direction.  On the one hand: okay, so why not?  Let's do it!  The more, the merrier!  More albums to review!  More bands to discuss!  Yay!

However, the other counterargument is the elephant in the room.  If PA added bands that, in retrospect, should NOT be here, then...get rid of them!  Out with the trash!  You don't belong here!  Our bad!  Boo!

Seriously, though, why would that be so terrible?  If PA "saw the light" a little later than they wanted re admitting certain bands (not least BECAUSE of the "if we admit X, then we have to admit Y and Z" argument) - or even having certain categories - it should not be seen as "losing face" to "clean up" the site so that it properly reflects WHATEVER "should" be included on a "progressive rock" site.  This is especially true if, as at least one person posits, the "mercenary" argument I proposed doesn't hold water: i.e., that simply admitting a new band does NOT necessarily lead to an increase in visitors and members.

The problem seems be that PA is unwilling to take EITHER position strongly: they do not want to admit X because then they have to admit Y and Z, but they will not eliminate W (which is why X is being proposed) because, well, W is already here!

BTW, at least one person noted that "progressive" is an "approach."  I agree.  And let me restate my OWN definition of "progressive": 

"Progressive rock is a mindset, a conscious and deliberate approach to writing rock music based on certain elements, which usually include some or all of the following: incorporation of Western (classical, jazz et al), Eastern (Indian, Middle Eastern, et al) and/or "world music" (African, Latin, et al) influences; use of non-standard (for rock) chord progressions; use of odd and/or shifting time signatures; use of non-standard (for rock) instrumentation (from sax, flute, or violin to sitar, bagpipes, or African percussion); an "orchestral" (i.e., "score") approach to arrangement; extended compositions, often including extended instrumental passages; virtuoso musicianship, often including extended solos; lyrics that tend toward the esoteric or fantastical and/or include numerous literary references; and the use of keyboards (Mellotron, synthesizers, etc.) and the recording studio itself to create effects, textures, and atmospheres."

Imperfect, to be sure.  But I think most would agree it is a solid start.  If so, it is clear that few if any bands in ENTIRE CATEGORIES would be included on PA.  But it is also true that some categories (particularly proto-prog), and their bands, DO belong on a "progressive" music site.  However, it is also true that some of the bands in other categories (e.g., prog-related, crossover, art rock) approach(ed) their songwriting from a perspective that was DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT from most other "rock" bands - a perspective that is/was, in a somewhat broader sense, "progressive."  Imho, 10CC, Klaatu, ELO and XTC (and, arguably, Queen and Supertramp) fit this mold.

In this regard, my position is simply this: XTC is easily AS "progressive" - if not moreso - than other bands IN ITS SAME CATEGORY.  Thus, either XTC should be added out of "fairness," or the other bands should be removed to create a "level playing field."

To do otherwise is - as others have also pointed out - to invite exactly the type of situation that my post seems to have created.

Peace.

This issue will never be sorted out satisfactorily, that much I found out when I raised it myself.

It's not that much of a snotstorm to be honest, and the reasons why are obvious - dilution - when there are so many not-really-Prog bands already here the level of controversy sparked by proposing one more is never going to be that great, however, you could try proposing Stratovarius to see if we can raise "snot" to "shot" (then "shop", "ship" and finally the word you're searching for)

maani wrote: The newest argument is, "Well, if we let XTC in, then we have to let in lots and lots of other bands."  One could approach this from either direction.  On the one hand: okay, so why not?  Let's do it!  The more, the merrier!  More albums to review!  More bands to discuss!  Yay!

That's not really a fallacy, more a missreading of the counterarguments. No one gave a version of the age-old "if we add XTC then we will have to add X, Y and Z" counterargument because we've already dispensed with that tactic using the tried and tested "IF X THEN Y" argument, ref: "If Oingo Boingo are then XTC should be here"... (never an argument winner that one)

 

What has been presented thus far are two other related counterarguments that seem to be saying the same thing, but are not: there is the "if we broaden the acceptance criteria to include XTC then X, Y and Z will follow" argument (which I think was implied more that stated) and the superfically similar "X, Y and Z are more deserving bands to add than XTC" argument (which is a paraphrasing of the one I made).

 

I don't see what makes XTC a special case when viewed in that light and judged by those criteria. If your argument is that bands X, Y and Z would not be let in, then I don't see the reason why that would be so.

 

Most of the ablums we've got listed are never reviewed as it is and many of the bands here never get discussed. The "more" we have doesn't dictate the level of reviewing or discussion that ensues. 

maani wrote: However, the other counterargument is the elephant in the room.  If PA added bands that, in retrospect, should NOT be here, then...get rid of them!  Out with the trash!  You don't belong here!  Our bad!  Boo!

We can't, only Max can delete bands. This is why people have to fight so hard to add these left-field controversial bands, because we cannot rectify a mistake after the event, we have to be absolutely certain that a band really needs to be here before we add them. This is also why we get a little narked when someone slips a band in through the backdoor.

 

Sure there are a number (not many, but some) bands that were added back in the days before the Genre Teams were set-up that we could delete, and there are several that were added by the Genre Teams that some people would rather we did delete, there are a few people here who think any band formed after 1979 should be deleted.

maani wrote: Seriously, though, why would that be so terrible?  If PA "saw the light" a little later than they wanted re admitting certain bands (not least BECAUSE of the "if we admit X, then we have to admit Y and Z" argument) - or even having certain categories - it should not be seen as "losing face" to "clean up" the site so that it properly reflects WHATEVER "should" be included on a "progressive rock" site.  This is especially true if, as at least one person posits, the "mercenary" argument I proposed doesn't hold water: i.e., that simply admitting a new band does NOT necessarily lead to an increase in visitors and members.

[I've been an Admin here for the past five and a half years, I have a name. ]

 

As I said - no one has presented the "if we admit X, then we have to admit Y and Z" argument.

 

Several times over the years I have described my Law of Incremental Additions - which, simply put, says: "A Genre is defined not by the wordy Genre Defintion at the top of the page that no one reads, but by the bands contained within the Genre, therefore every band added subtly changes that definition." This does not mean that adding band X opens the door for bands Y and Z, but it does mean the door is opened just a little wider - and each band addition widens the door just a little more. Which leads not to a deluge but a slow trickle so Oingo Boingo dribble in and no one noticed. (Though it would have been nice if the Xover team had informed the Admins before hand, not that we'd have done anything about it of course, but it would have been "nice" if they'd at least played lip-service to the guidelines)

maani wrote: The problem seems be that PA is unwilling to take EITHER position strongly: they do not want to admit X because then they have to admit Y and Z, but they will not eliminate W (which is why X is being proposed) because, well, W is already here!

We can't delete W. This is not lack of will or because we cannot admit a mistake - If I could delete Rainbow or Mercury Rev I'd do it in a heartbeat (if the rest of the Admin team agreed that I should of course - I'm not an anarchist).

 

I can go to the User profile and hit a button marked [DELETE] and the account disapears

I can go to an Album page and hit a button marked [DELETE] and the album disapears

Thank you for your measured response.  The only real issue I have with it is that either you did not read all the posts, or you and I are reading things differently; i.e., in this merely 4-page thread, I have seen more than one member bring up the "if we admit XTC, then we would have to admit Y and Z because Y and Z are just as progressive if not moreso than XTC" argument.  Otherwise, your reading of those posts is largely semantics.

I realize that only Max or Rony can remove a band (that, of course, is what I was implying, though I did not state it as such).  I was suggesting that they should; i.e., that if they have some actual "vision" of what "progressive" means vis-a-vis owning a site called "Progarchives," then it behooves them to "clean it up," since, clearly, there remain issues - even, if seems, with you, a long-time administrator.  [N.B. Had I not left for a number of years after the Queen debacle, I would be celebrating my 9th year here, undoubtedly having taken on some sort of administrating duties.]

Indeed, as a Founding Moderator and Special Collaborator, I can only say that it is "troubling" that, at least in the current respect, "nothing has changed" in all the years I was gone; i.e., this same discussion/debate is still being had.  And I believe it is being had, as I suggest, because there seems no interest on Max' or Rony's part in "biting the bullet," getting their hands dirty again, and putting an end (I am guessing at least for MOST people) to this debate by either (a) allowing the inclusion of even more bands in categories such as prog-related and crossover (and maybe, just maybe, taking me up on the suggestion about a "progressive pop" category, which at least some people seem to think makes sense, since "art rock" was eliminated), or (b) "scrubbing" the site of bands (and, if necessary, categories) that don't "fit in" with whatever CLEAR "vision/definition" of "progressive" they want a site called Progarchives to have.

I know it sound like I am trying to tell everyone how to run the site, what should be included, what should not, etc.  Not so.  And I am acutely aware that the owners cannot satisfy EVERYONE all the time (nor should they).  I am simply pointing out that, unless and until the owners "make a choice," they (and you) will have to continue dealing with the same debate (including the frustrations of some, possibly many members) going forward - a debate which, as noted, has been going on apparently continuously since the Queen debacle many, many years ago.

I continue to support PA, and still consider it the best site of its kind on the Web.  I continue to participate in forums.  And I continue to appreciate the time and dedication that you and other admins put in here (since I can truly sympathize!  LOL).

Peace.

That we are reading things differently is self-evident, no one in this thread has stated "if we admit XTC, then we would have to admit Y and Z..." or in any other thread since Peter back in two-thousand-o-blimey-was-it-that-long-ago. (while I wasn't here during some of those early suggestions, I've been in the thick of it for all those that have occured in the past six years)

 

While the distinction does indeed rest upon the semantics of the language used, that also determines the meaning and intent of those words. A sentence containing XTC followed by a list of other bands does not always mean "if we admit XTC, then we would have to admit Y and Z...".

maani wrote: I realize that only Max or Rony can remove a band (that, of course, is what I was implying, though I did not state it as such). I was suggesting that they should; i.e., that if they have some actual "vision" of what "progressive" means vis-a-vis owning a site called "Progarchives," then it behooves them to "clean it up," since, clearly, there remain issues - even, if seems, with you, a long-time administrator. [N.B. Had I not left for a number of years after the Queen debacle, I would be celebrating my 9th year here, undoubtedly having taken on some sort of administrating duties.] Indeed, as a Founding Moderator and Special Collaborator, I can only say that it is "troubling" that, at least in the current respect, "nothing has changed" in all the years I was gone; i.e., this same discussion/debate is still being had. And I believe it is being had, as I suggest, because there seems no interest on Max' or Rony's part in "biting the bullet," getting their hands dirty again, and putting an end (I am guessing at least for MOST people) to this debate by either (a) allowing the inclusion of even more bands in categories such as prog-related and crossover (and maybe, just maybe, taking me up on the suggestion about a "progressive pop" category, which at least some people seem to think makes sense, since "art rock" was eliminated), or (b) "scrubbing" the site of bands (and, if necessary, categories) that don't "fit in" with whatever CLEAR "vision/definition" of "progressive" they want a site called Progarchives to have.

Max and Rony (& Philippe) have had little active interest in the site for the past xx years and none at all this year. Bob, Jim, Andy and myself are mere caretakers - we cannot create or destroy, we can only prop-up what's already here and try and keep a control on how things function within the constraints we operate under - if there is a vision then it's not a coherent one or one that's been disseminated down the ranks for a long time.

maani wrote: I know it sound like I am trying to tell everyone how to run the site, what should be included, what should not, etc. Not so. And I am acutely aware that the owners cannot satisfy EVERYONE all the time (nor should they). I am simply pointing out that, unless and until the owners "make a choice," they (and you) will have to continue dealing with the same debate (including the frustrations of some, possibly many members) going forward - a debate which, as noted, has been going on apparently continuously since the Queen debacle many, many years ago. I continue to support PA, and still consider it the best site of its kind on the Web. I continue to participate in forums. And I continue to appreciate the time and dedication that you and other admins put in here (since I can truly sympathize! LOL).

I am more of the opinion that we should stop trying to include all of our past and instead continue appreciating the ongoing present. There is SO MUCH good music being created around the planet in this, the 21st Century--music that fully and intentionally fits into the progressive rock definition(s) that we've argued about for so long--that we should just let the dust settle on the past and let the newbies churn it up. The likes of Wobbler, Steven Wilson, Riverside, Moon Safari, T, and Big Big Train are doing a wonderful job of keeping the spirit and sounds of "classic" progressive rock alive, while the likes of Anglagard, Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, Toby Driver, Devin Townsend, Richard Wileman, and AltrOck Productions are doing their best to push the envelope of "progress" in creative album-oriented rock. 

Let's give the musicians who are today making conscious efforts to create "progressive rock" a chance, the credit they might be due, and, hopefully, a place in our hearts.