Does Laurie Anderson belong in the archives?

I'll fight for her inclusion.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Good posr Logan, bu tI ask you a question..... Related to Prog Related?   Isn't hat forcing too much the boundaries?   The site has already accepted the inclusion to atists related to Prog, as an example artists from a Prog band are almost pre-accepted to Prog Related, but it's specifically said that artists from Prog Related bands won't be  accepted as individual additions.   The point is clear. Prog Related is a non PROG category, so what's the sense of adding an artist rellated to a non Prog artists or band?

Not sure I understand this.
Who said Laurie Anderson would be related to a non-Prog band - I mean, who said we would add her based on that?
I think we're trying to add her as a non-Prog artist with, however, enough progressive characteristics that could "relate".


Edited by Ricochet - July 26 2008 at 07:36

Ivan:

You almost make it sound like I'm coming clean.  When I said before that I'd like her here, that is exactly what I meant (had intended to specify in my first post in this topic).  There's a difference between liking something here and thinking it should be here (of course it can be both).  One notices it a lot in topics here, and is a bit of a peeve, "You should have included this artist" rather than "I wish you had included this artist" when it's purely a subjective appraisal.  As I said in my first post in Mandrake's Laurie Anderson thread (back in October), I do not consider her a Prog artist, a progressive artist but not prog, and so could understand why she wouldn't be considered suitable for the site.  That said I heard qualities that made me think that she could find a place, particularly since this site has been moving/ has moved beyond a  traditional view of Prog (and not just because of including the "non-prog" (or semi prog) categories. I felt she might find a place in "revisionistprogarchives." Incidentally, I should have mentioned that Laurie Anderson cited Massenet as an influence and has adapted music by him.

If this was my site,  she would be here, because her music has experimental and innovative qualities that would fit my vision for a progressive site, but it's not, so I don't want to be presumptuous in saying she should be here -- that others should share my vision at this site.  If the admins, after weighing up the arguments and listening to the music decide that she is acceptible; then great.  If not, I accept it.  I don't think I'd be wrong in wanting her here, but it would be wrong of me in this case to expect the same from those who make those decisions.  And just because I like certain music, of course, does not mean that I would think it suitable for the site.  There's music I dislike that I'd sooner suggest, because, well, I know or suspect it fits.  Of course if I like the music I'll be more passionate about the addition, and if  I think such an addition could expand the parameters of the site in a beneficial progressive way with related additions, then yeah.

I can think of at least one person who is something of an expert in progressive electronic that feels that she could have a place here (and he posted ).  I do recognise that she doesn't fit that well under the current site parameters/ guidelines.   But as some wise soul said recently, "one can make a case for most anything as prog (or at least prog related) if you try hard enough.

I've held myself back from making certain recommendations, though.  I had considered suggesting Todd Machoveran experimental composer and inventor from MIT who has done very  interesting innovative music (hyperinstruments/ computer music/ as well as acoustic chamber music) but decided not to, as he's more on the academic music side than rock or rock-related.  In that case more research into his music informed me -- I'd heard some amazing experimental tape-loop operatic music of his on an arts station (somewhat reminscent of some Stockhausen work). Okay, we might both remember that we once discussed Kitaro's merit... I felt there was a  case, whereas you didn't.  It's not always cut and dried.  And I used a to have a considerable number of Kitaro albums (incuding the ones that delved more into rock).  I rmember that part of your argument against Kitaro was that the music was too simple, as with Anderson in this case.  I see it differently, and think that Progressive Electronic need not be that complex.  And you didn't think him that good (of course one doesn't need to be good to be included in the archives).  I don't find his music that simple -- not that complex either, but that's not what I primarily think about when it comes to Electronic Prog (often a very different kettle of sigh to, say, symhonic prog which operates according to different guidelines.  If he were to be evaluated for Prog Related (in this case as a Progressive Electronic Related artist) then one might expect somewhat different criteria than for, say, a Prog Metal Related artist.

Prog Related definition: Progressive rock is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others, a voice in the chorus and as part of a biggest scenario has points of contact with other musical genres. I'd argue that it's not even a true genre as it's used now here as its so disparate in styles. Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that: - Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR I've heard many times from high-ups that it's a non-prog category, which can indicate an absence of prog (guess it depends on the context -- I think of it a little differently).  Some consider Lou Reed, Anderson's partner, as prog-related, and I know he's influenced her music. At the least I think Anderson related to prog related, which still makes her realted, just a little farthr romoved.  I had once, not so seriiously suggested a "Related to Prog Related" category, as well as a "Related to Related to Prog Related" category -- another nefarious attempt to further dilute the prog purity of this site by me. - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR She wouldn't fit there, even if she has infleunced progressive music.  The widely accepted kinda counts against obscure artists that somehow magically influenced it when no one ven knew who they were. - Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog. I tend to think that Anderson does blend characteristics of progressive ... won't say rock necessarily, but progressive electronic as illustrated by artists in the archives, and blended it with aminstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the subgenre is evident that has significant similarities. Okay, there's a bit of a problem when I limit it to Progressive Electronic rather than just Prog since I may take out the Prog part of the equation from Electronic.  In other words, blends electronic with amianstream rather than specifically progressive electronic. One could quite easily mistake an Electronic (but not Progressive Electronic) artist for a  Progressive Electronic Related artist. Never mind, it's very late. We specify the word MUSICAL because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their compositional work because the music is what determines the characteristics of a band or an artist. Yes, the musician may be good or bad, but it's the composition that matters most.  I mean, sometimes you have very poorly execute prog compositions, but they still come out as prog since it still has the compositional qualities one looks for -- it's possible (sloppy played prog, but prog none-the-less). Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community. Ah, now I understand the non-prog comments made by some more... I guess cause I don't tend to think of it as a genre as we use it here (more an umbrealls of styles/ approaches).  When i think of Prog as a genre, I do think of those classic bands like Yes, ELP etc.

Forgetting the definitions used at this site for the moment, and definitions can change (sometimes we define things into existence, and then negate other things because of our rigid definitions): I think people like Laurie Anderson could fall into the shadowy realms of progressive music (not all is really rock, and not all is complex or sounds like what most would think of as Prog) that is represented at this site (or we could define her a place, not that I'm really suggesting it).

I have great respect for the Ground and Sky site, and they include Big Science (the album I primarily based my liking her here on)  I also refer to babyblaue prog reviews a lot when looking for album info particularly (not that we should follow their examples as they probably have their own criteria).  Note: I came up with the thought that Laurie Anderson may be a worthwhile addition independently:

Ground and Sky review - Laurie Anderson - Big Science

Babyblaue Prog-Reviews: Laurie Anderson

 So maybe it's not as far-fetched as some think, and maybe it's more far-fetched than others think. Having only heard in full two of her albums, I'm hardly an expert (Big Science alone was enough  for me to make a connection, but that connection lies outside PA definitions; current or otherwise).

I rather like this little write up from The New Yorker: Night Life: Night Life: The New Yorker

HIGHLINE BALLROOM 431 W. 16th St. (212-414-5994)—May 17-18: Laurie Anderson’s performances are not the multimedia events that they used to be, but they do hit on a variety of levels. Her small group (usually a trio, though her husband, Lou Reed, has been known to sit in) creates a blend of keyboard, synthesizer, violin, and guitar sounds, sometimes rhythmic, sometimes breaking through the strictures of time signatures and achieving a meditative euphoria. But the most arresting instrument in the band is Anderson’s voice. Often, she’s not singing so much as speaking in pitch, every word precisely presented, offering lyrics that are epigrammatic, politically and culturally astute, funny, and cosmic. To quote from “Transitory Life,” one of her recent compositions, “It takes a long time for a mouse to realize he’s in a trap, but, once he does, something inside him never stops shaking.” (Part of the High Line Festival.) May 19: The Secret Machines started off as a Texas trio, then decamped to Brooklyn to bring their sprawling sound and sense-engulfing live shows to a larger audience. After two popular and critically acclaimed major-label albums, the guitarist Benjamin Curtis has announced that he is heading out on his own. The band, known for a prog-ish, stentorian approach, is now entering a new phase. (Part of the High Line Festival.)

Incidentally, quite a number of progressive or progressive related artists such as Igor's Egg - " LDS - "~V~" Gravity Tree , JESUS DIESTRE and BLISSFUL BEHEMOTH cite Laurie Anderson as an influence, for what it's worth.  Maybe not big names in the progressive scene, but she's had an effect.  If I really researched I very much expect that I'd come up with a number of names in the archives that cite here as an inspiration.

As for Laurie Anderson's possible inclusion, one could think of a suitable prog description (if she were prog enough), I'd say Progressive Electronic/ Expermental/ Art Rock then (using prog parameters, otherwise I'd add others).  Then for Prog Related one would think if she has sufficient relation to artists in those categories.  Duh.  In Progressive Electronic (an important base point for me) they tend to look for bands with a significant psych element -- is here sufficient psych elements to make the "related" connection?  I thought of her because of her experimental, progressive approach.

Rico: That's, in a nutshell, why I had thought that she'd be a worthy addition to the site.

I'm glad I copied my post before the forums were unavailable since it's a fairly longish one.  And now it's failing to connect.  Ah, gotcha.

Logan wrote: I don't think of her as a Prog artist, but as a progressive artist and as a performance artist.  I would like to see her in the archives (and it could open the doors to some other interesting additions ).

1. She's not influential,
2. Apparently is not influenced by any Prog artist,
3. Most Prog collectors won't care for her additions,
4. Her music is extremely basic, her main influence is mainstream.

Please express your opinions.