Should ELO be added to prog archives?

Has anyone seen Eminem's new video?

I saw on the news (today, oh boy...)that Michael Jackson wants it banned from TV, as it shows Eminem made up as MJ, with children bouncing on his bed - and then his nose falls off!

MJ says it's "disrespectful".

Eminem - "respectful"???

I WANT TO SEE IT!!!!

MJ is giving it more publicity than it probably deserves - but this is the sort of thing that sells records these days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1326881,00.html

All:

Cert: Eminem "progressive rap?"  You may not be far from the truth...

Jim: Another thread on the definition of "progressive rock?"  Over my dead body.  (This is where having the ability to delete threads comes in handy...)

Easy Livin: You almost convinced me re COTC, until you suggested that "I don't think there was any doubt at the time of COTC's release that it was a prog album."  Poppycock.  1974 (the year of its release) saw the release of The Lamb, The Power and the Glory, Red, Starless and Bible Black, Remember the Future, Apostrophe (Zappa) and Journey to the Center of the Earth, among others.  You would be hard pressed to convince me that COTC belongs in that grouping.

However, 1974 also saw the release of Sheet Music (10CC) and Sheer Heart Attack (Queen).  This is where I would place it.  Because although neither of these albums is as "thematic" as COTC, the approaches were similar, and the ultimate end result was more similar among SM, SHA and COTC than it was between COTC and the other truly "prog" albums mentioned above.

However, there is another issue here.  Even if we concede that COTC is "prog" as we define that term generally, why should Supertramp be included here simply because one album (and maybe some of one other album) happened to be "prog?"  Don't we define a group as "prog" only when the majority of their output is clearly "progressive?"  If so, Supertramp fails this test, and does not warrant a place on the site - unless we create a new category, either the one I suggested or something else that would include a group of their ilk.  Otherwise, they are no more "prog" than many groups who happened to put out one or two prog albums among, say, ten or twelve albums.  (Zep comes to mind here; most of PG and at least some of Presence is as "prog," or moreso, than much of COTC.)

I remain unconvinced that COTC is "prog," or that Supertramp deserves a place on PA.

Peace.

You've been a bit quiet lately Maani, good to see you stirring up some debate!

I broadly agree with your suggestion of a prog pop category, but are you advocating bands which fall within it should or should not be in the archives? I wouldn't have a problem with the some bands you mention being here (some are of course), although I have doubts about 10CC and Queen. I acknowledge Queen did some pretty fancy (not to say great) work, but I reckon they are overall far more pop/glam than prog.

Where I disagree is in your proposal that Supertramp are prog pop and not prog. For me, "COTC" is one of the great prog albums. As Cert says, it has all the right ingredients. The fact that it also contained the hit single "Dreamer" (which it is easy to forget was at the time very "different") should not detract from its credentials. "EITQM" I accept had a bit more pop, but "Fool's Overture" alone is a classic piece of prog. I consider the music of Hodgson era Supertramp to be quite different from the other bands you mention.

I think is is Dick Heath who has made the point a number of times that the definition of prog these days seems to have narrowed somewhat from that of the early and mid 70's. I don't think there was any doubt at the time of COTC's release that it was a prog album.

I can't let Certif1ed go completely unscathed though, in that I do feel Uriah Heep are a perfectly legitimate inclusion in the archives. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about their music, but tracks such as "Salisbury"and "Paradise/The spell" are to me, excellent prog.

ELO IN THE ARECHIVES?

IN A WORD...NO DEFINATELY NOT(OKAY THREE WORDS THEN!!)

like many bands from the late 60s/early seventies they were influenced by the musical"attitudes"of the time and having formed at a time of psychadelic and general EXPERIMENTATION they may have elements of the style that led to what we generally consider to be prog(as many bands at the time (eg Deep Purple in their very ealy days "Book Of Talysin "etc) did)

BUT LIKE BANDS SUCH AS PURPLE they did not pursue that path  and although i partly agree With Jim(GASP!!!) in That some of their early albums had at least a progressive feel(at times)) i would have to be in the no camp

perhaps we could have some sort of "disputed" section!!

We'll have to agree to disagree then, maani - "Crime of the Century" contains all the subjective "feel" of "real prog" to my ears - and many objectively identifable elements too.

I understand the term progressive pop to include the Beatles and other pop bands whose albums go way beyond the standard collection of 3 minute tunes - even into concept territory, but do not develop thematic material, rather choose to experiment within the confines of a song. This is where Supertramp differ, especially on COTC, where thematic material is developed, tempi shift, and song structures are elongated. Admittedly, COTC isn't pure concept - but neither is ITCOTCK. 

On the other hand, I hear nothing in, for example, Uriah Heep or ELO that is remotely proggy, or even progressive in the strict sense. Now Queen...