Scorpions for Krautrock or prog related

The band have been rejected and, of course, there are no new albums or discoveries to add to the argument.

Fine band in the 70s, hair band in the 80's and onwards. Never released a full-on Prog album. Case closed.

clarke2001 wrote: progrockfreak wrote: Yes you can. And find five pages with nigh on 100 posts to wade through. What I'm talking about here is a simple definitive conclusion when the collaborators have all had their say, and the band has been rejected. Something that will show up in a normal google search for a band, and that will lead the reader to a single summarial entry saying what the band were (or are) about, and why they were considered unsuitable for inclusion in the site proper. It would make things a whole lot easier for the casual user just looking up a band they were interested in, and add to the functionality of the site in my opinion. That's something I've been in favor of for a long time. We even discussed it in collaborators zone a few times. No result - although many people agree it would be a good idea. We had had heated debates about The Stranglers, XTC, Grateful Dead, even Dire Straits. It would be nice to acknowledge a proposal, even unanimously  rejected - ''okay, we all voted no for Dire Straits but we all agree they had some lengthy songs/solos/arrangements in their early years and they might appeal, even sound progressive to some fans". Such a list would be great for a ultimate prog rock resource, and it would make easier for newbies while doing new proposals. It will also show that we, as a community, do not live in vacuum, we have dozens of collaborators with various levels of expertise: we are aware of Bob Dylan's significance, Velvet Underground's significance, Judas Priest, we know for that one prog album by The Rolling Stones, even Bee Gees. The problem is, we have 6000+ bands in the database, and I have no clue how many others were rejected during 7 years of website existence. We used to have something called 'Master List' in the early years, but such a list is obsolete nowadays, if it exists at all. The general argument is - we're all unpayed volonteers spending our spare time here, and we should be focusing on new prog bands to be added, rather than waste energy on issues not crucial for the web site. While in general I don't blame anyone with such an opinion, I still think it's a pity we are not sorting out our inner mess.

I agree that would be very nice to have info and a summary of reasons for rejection. Yeah there would be tooooons of bands to have and its not a priority, but its a good idea that I agree would benefit the site.

progrockfreak wrote: Yes you can. And find five pages with nigh on 100 posts to wade through. What I'm talking about here is a simple definitive conclusion when the collaborators have all had their say, and the band has been rejected. Something that will show up in a normal google search for a band, and that will lead the reader to a single summarial entry saying what the band were (or are) about, and why they were considered unsuitable for inclusion in the site proper. It would make things a whole lot easier for the casual user just looking up a band they were interested in, and add to the functionality of the site in my opinion.

That's something I've been in favor of for a long time. We even discussed it in collaborators zone a few times. No result - although many people agree it would be a good idea. We had had heated debates about The Stranglers, XTC, Grateful Dead, even Dire Straits. It would be nice to acknowledge a proposal, even unanimously  rejected - ''okay, we all voted no for Dire Straits but we all agree they had some lengthy songs/solos/arrangements in their early years and they might appeal, even sound progressive to some fans". Such a list would be great for a ultimate prog rock resource, and it would make easier for newbies while doing new proposals. It will also show that we, as a community, do not live in vacuum, we have dozens of collaborators with various levels of expertise: we are aware of Bob Dylan's significance, Velvet Underground's significance, Judas Priest, we know for that one prog album by The Rolling Stones, even Bee Gees.

The problem is, we have 6000+ bands in the database, and I have no clue how many others were rejected during 7 years of website existence. We used to have something called 'Master List' in the early years, but such a list is obsolete nowadays, if it exists at all.

The general argument is - we're all unpayed volonteers spending our spare time here, and we should be focusing on new prog bands to be added, rather than waste energy on issues not crucial for the web site. While in general I don't blame anyone with such an opinion, I still think it's a pity we are not sorting out our inner mess.

listen wrote: toroddfuglesteg wrote: Scorpions is German hard rock and that's it. They are a good band and perhaps underrated due to that horrible whistle tune Winds Of Change and a very cheesy image which does not cut it in 2011. But progressive rock or even prog related ? No !!!!!!! Remember! We are evaluating on the basis of their debut, which wasn't even the same band as later albums (only 2/5 of the members on that album remained after that album was released)! This is *NOT* a discussion of whether Scorpions' music as a whole is progressive.

That is a bit deceptive. Scorpions is a hard-rock band with more then 15(?) albums.
With such an extensive discography, the evaluation won't be done on just one or two initial albums that are entirely different from what came after.
Unless of course those two albums were very influential on later prog-rock. Then they might fir for Prog-Related.

So you'd better put your energy in making a list of established prog rock acts that claim (themselves) to have be influenced by the Scorpions' first two albums, which I don't think will fly as Scorpions were just absorbing influences from existing UK heavy rock (Uriah Heep for instance).

I think it's time you guys added a new category to the site, "Almost But Not Quite", "The Ones That Got Away", or some similarly descriptive name, where you can bundle all these bands that aren't immediately recognisable to the world as genuine prog artists, but do have the occasional flash of inspiration that rises beyond the normal territory of hard rock, pop or whatever it is that they usually play.

toroddfuglesteg wrote: Scorpions is German hard rock and that's it. They are a good band and perhaps underrated due to that horrible whistle tune Winds Of Change and a very cheesy image which does not cut it in 2011. But progressive rock or even prog related ? No !!!!!!!

Remember! We are evaluating on the basis of their debut, which wasn't even the same band as later albums (only 2/5 of the members on that album remained after that album was released)! This is *NOT* a discussion of whether Scorpions' music as a whole is progressive.

Scorpions is German hard rock and that's it. They are a good band and perhaps underrated due to that horrible whistle tune Winds Of Change and a very cheesy image which does not cut it in 2011. But progressive rock or even prog related ? No !!!!!!!

MovingPictures07 wrote: listen wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: No. That's all that needs to be said. Have you listened to it? To my ears, this album is definitely no less progressive than the music of a LOT of bands on this site I despise the "If X is here, then Y must be" argument. We've made mistakes before (IMO), and the collabs at this try their best (yet I'm still entitled to my opinion). That does not justify more mistakes. I'm beginning to think that many people are considering anything above average pop music to be prog or progressive, and that's simply not the case. There's plenty of music in between art and pop music that does not belong here, even in Related. And yes, I heard it. I stand by my opinion.

I'm not making an "If X is here, then Y must be" argument at all. The fact that bands with similar levels of progressiveness exist across this site warrants and even motivates the consideration of this band. And remember, "progressiveness" is a subjective and multifaceted quality, if progressiveness is a contiguous and coherent concept at all. And of course, the concept exists on a continuum and where the line between "progressive" and non-"progressive" exists is subjective.

By and large, the Scorpions played formulaic, simple stadium hard rock. But, in case anyone didn't read my first post, I am suggesting Scorpions for inclusion solely because of their first album, Lonesome Crow. And let's remember: There is no requirement on this site for how many "progressive" albums a band must have produced in order to be listed (there are many artists on this site that only ever released one album, and many that only released one or a few progressive albums [for instance only one of Jose Cid's 20-something albums is listed in the archives, so it seems the objection on the basis of not wanting to add the bulk of non-progressive Scorpions' albums is potentially void]), and no requirement for progressiveness across their entire catalog, especially if the members changed, as is the case with the Scorpions, for which only 2 of the 5 musicians on Lonesome Crow continued on after that album (and by the way, what were many of the prog "greats" doing around the same time as the rest of many of the Scorpions albums? ELP? Genesis? Camel? Yes?). And of course Progarchives intends to be the "most complete and powerful prog-rock resource". So, if Lonesome Crow is deemed to be progressive, Scorpions should be listed in the archives. I rescind my proposal of the Krautrock category; I don't think their first album is quite krautrock (although bands like Arktis, Dschinn, Jeronimo, Pacific Sound, Orange Peel, etc  are no more krautrock or progressive to my ears). But I do think that Lonesome Crow is progressive, if only to the degree seemingly required (from my subjective observation) to be listed as Prog-related or Crossover Prog.

The most progressive track is the final, title track, "Lonesome Crow," although there is progressiveness throughout the album. You can listen to it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1BGCechX3Y

The song "In Search of the Peace of Mind" also has some progressive elements, mostly with its tangential structure (as does the song "Action," for which I did not find a video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osuvkwVzKrk

Lonesome Crow was produced by the krautrock-affiliated Conny Plank (Can, Cluster, Harmonia, Kluster, Kraan, Guru Guru, Neu!, Organisation, Os Mundi) for Brain records. While it is probably likely that Plank's seeming krautrock aesthetic had some amount of an influence on the sound on Lonesome Crow, there is definite progressiveness in the music to my ears. And lets remember to consider progressiveness in a krautrock light here.



Edited by listen - May 09 2011 at 13:52

Now I really am intrigued to listen to Lonesome Crow.
It's the only one from their 70's stuff that I don't have.

You could say their second album "Fly To The Rainbow" is "proto Prog Metal", like Judas Priest's first two albums. Is that enough for Prog-Related? Not my call to make but it's not an absurd suggestion neither.

Logan wrote: "Lonesome Crow" is a good song, anyway. And "Leave Me" It's really dated, though with a 60's sound.  I would have pegged them as earlier than 1972 recordings.

NOTE: the version of "Lonesome Crow" here is edited--it is 4 minutes too short. FOR THE FULL VERSION, LISTEN HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1BGCechX3Y


Edited by listen - May 09 2011 at 06:02