The Stranglers???

Sean Trane wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Perhaps Jean overstated it a bit; she is genuinely pissed off. Not by the decision in itself though; what she can't stand is that the team simply decides "no" without giving any reason. And by "any reason" she does not mean a simple "they are not prog"; no, the team should be able to explain the rejection. If the Stranglers are not prog despite their fitting so many of the attributes we associate with prog there should be a pretty strong reason. Now while I am not quite on Jean's side (I would have put the Stranglers into prog-related) I definitely do see her point. And I am actually curious about the complete rejection myself. The site should be transparent, in my opinion. Hi Jean & Friede,   No doubt you two are aware that The Strangler's boderline punk "belonging" movement (although they were rejected by many inside the movement as were The Police) make it almost impossible for a prog site to include them into a full-prog category. Even Crossover Prog sounds very difficult if we want that category getting considered as a second prog-related     If I understand well, you two (Jean mainly) wouldn't see a "prog-related inlusion" for The Stranglers as satisfactory solution. I as a Strangler fan would see them perfectly in that category, sitting next to Bowie, Zep, Roxy Music, Be Bop Deluxe etc..... I mean this is companionship that Cornwell himself wouldn't oppose and even gladfully agree  (JJ Burnell's ok is likely harder and negative)

I am of the opinion that only the music counts and nothing else. it is not of any interest where some journalists and music moguls tried to put them. I checked the list of attributes we associate with prog, and it speaks volumes, in my opinion. and I repeat what I said in a previous post: if we don't go by our own checklist, then we lose credibility.
I am satisfied though that my status as prog reviewer has been removed. if my opinion of what prog is differs that much from the general opinion of this site I can't be trusted as prog reviewer and hence should not have that status

BaldFriede wrote: Perhaps Jean overstated it a bit; she is genuinely pissed off. Not by the decision in itself though; what she can't stand is that the team simply decides "no" without giving any reason. And by "any reason" she does not mean a simple "they are not prog"; no, the team should be able to explain the rejection. If the Stranglers are not prog despite their fitting so many of the attributes we associate with prog there should be a pretty strong reason. Now while I am not quite on Jean's side (I would have put the Stranglers into prog-related) I definitely do see her point. And I am actually curious about the complete rejection myself. The site should be transparent, in my opinion.

David: Sure, no matter how tyrannical a new owner was, we would still have legal rights when it comes to intellectual property, but one may have to fight a bit to see one's rights respected.  Considering that we have lawyers on board, it mightn't be much of a struggle.

I know that's the policy here, and a legal position no matter who owned the site, but I've known a case where an owner resisted removing materials that someone had prepared when that person asked that they be removed -- made the claim that because they were prepared for the site (despite being voluntary), they belonged to the site (this was after that person was demoted and hadn't the power to remove them himself).  Never-the-less, the owner relented after a while, though he claimed to know copyright law and that he had a legal position to support the site's right to keeping the materials.  In this case it was an interview and that person had done it officially for the site, so in such a case there was an argument for keeping the materials.  It wouldn't be much of a fight, but a new owner might resist and contest the removal of certain materials. Of course buying the domain/ site would not be the same as buying all the materials here, as they are the intellectual property of those volunteers who prepared them, and cannot be sold, but I could see some potential "ownership" dispute and reluctance....

I had a strange experience at the first board/site I belonged to.  The media company slapped a notice on the site saying that all materials found in the site were their property (this included posts) after the board had been around for seven months or so. Of course they were not in their rights to do so. Then accounts were removed, then later the board and site (after concerns that ideas and stories were being harvested to use in the show) -- actually, they hid the forums, but kept them around for quite a while --  and then ideas/ stories for the show made by members, especially myself as i was most active, found their way into the final season of the show a year or so later.  I was shocked to see how similar the final episode was to a scenario I wrote at the board.  I did not take legal action although I had records on my computer (I saved most of what I wrote at the website).

Anyway, that "there is another possibility" post wasn't meant that seriously.  I meant it to be kind of amusing/ jocular.


Edited by Logan - October 29 2008 at 23:10

Thank you.  There is another possibility.  He could make the owners an offer they can't refuse, get control of the site, and then determine which bands are in and out, and define the parameters by monarchical decree. But he shouldn't then be surprised if people who have volunteered countless hours for the site jump ship and fight to have their bios, reviews, definitions and articles removed.  It can be so lonely at the top.... 

No problems understanding your point, Angelo, and I thought the video was funny, but I found Ripples post a little less than cogent.  It didn't seem much thought was put into it.  I guess "That was stupid" and "I am more concerned with the quality of music than the genre!" were unrelated thoughts, but it seemed an odd way to respond.  Of course this video was not posted for its intellectualism, and as for "being more concerned with the quality of music than the genre," well, fine, but if making a suggestion it has to be accepted for a genre (be seen to fit the parameters).  This was declined by Crossover and Related, so if it is to be in the archives, either make a case for a new category, suggest new parameters (which if well-conceived would be considerable), or suggest it to another team (not that I could see the Stranglers in anything but Related or Crossover).  Better yet, accept that it's not deemed suitable, and move on.  It's not like it's not listed at other sites (even if non-Prog sites), and I think it would be difficult to make the case that this is an essential addition for PA whether it's wanted in by some or not.  I don't know if it's listed in any other Prog sites, but if it is then one can enjoy it there, and if it's not, once can try to get it in at another Prog site, or make your own.  It's not like PA is the only Prog site around.  But if you don't care about genre, then why be upset about it being not accepted as a Prog genre or Prog genre related band?  That's what I don't get.  This is Prog Archives, not Progressive Music Archives, and not Quality Music Archives.  You don't have to agree.  If a band's not deemed suitable for the site according to the "prog" and "prog related" parameters, then it's not in.  People don't always agree on that because Prog and Prog Related has such variety, and different meanings/ parameters to different people.  It's not worth getting angry about.  No point in railing against the system, but suggestions are welcomed.


Edited by Logan - October 29 2008 at 20:46

Must admit I thought the video was kind of stupid too, but not in a bad way, more in a "there is a fine line between clever and stupid" Spinal Tap way -- minus the clever. ;)  Oops, I hope I haven't crossed the line.

I'm not really sure what your point was Ripples.


Edited by Logan - October 29 2008 at 19:05

Ripples wrote: Angelo wrote: Hmmm. Echo & the Bunnymen... I always get that name mixed up with these guys. Just the name, mind you... That was stupid! I am more concerned with the quality of music than the genre!

First read, then call me stupid. Or better, don't call me anything....


Edited by Angelo - October 29 2008 at 18:30

Hmmm. Echo & the Bunnymen... I always get that name mixed up with these guys. Just the name, mind you...

leowe wrote: I would say the solo-album of Stranglers bass-player Jean Jacques Burnel, called "Euroman-cometh" from 1979 is prog in my opinion. Just take a listen. The Stranglers not in my opinion, allthough I love their sound (with the keyboards). Anybody ever listened to Magazine ("Second hand daylight)? or Echo and the Bunnymen (Ocean Rain)? They're more prog than the Stranglers. And what about U2 (Achtung Baby)? It's new wave, I know, but they all expanded the boundaries of their genre and experimented with new sounds.

Edited by Dean - October 24 2008 at 11:44

The T wrote: Ripples wrote: Does anyone on the team have a PROG PHD???   No, but I guess everyone who belongs to a team has a PHD in dealing with ^%$@&....

Post of the year!