ELO is not prog?

micky wrote: Ivan, I know you have them all, I remember accusing you of having not heard them first time we talked about this ha hahah ha.   I do respect your opinion,  and also applaud you for being so....consistant in your standards You wanted to say stubborn, and I admit it.   I don't agree with many of the acts that are listed here either. In fact much of what you say may be true, but I believe you are overanalyzing it. Well, I always believed that Prog music needs to be analyzed, that's one of the main reasons why paople take so much time to fall in love with Progressive albums.  The progressive movement sprung out of the desire to move rock music out of the contraints of blues-based, guitar driven rock.  That is bit simplistic I know, but on the mark I think generally.  It was a movement, and ELO was without a doubt in that movement. Not IMO, I still believe they tried to make Rock & Roll with orchestral instruments, nothing more, sadly they fell in the cheepest genre possible back in the late 70's (Disco). BTW: I believe that Prog is much more than just moving from blues based Rock.  I'm the same age as you, was there in the late 70's as well,  my parents and my older brothers were really into prog back then and considered them prog. Just talked to Mom about that the other day (still loves ELO )  I still love ELO, but don't believe they are Prog Have friends who are a tad older and consider ELO prog, I know it's unscientific, but lends me to believe that amoung those who were active or interested in the scene at that time, that ELO was considered to be part of the English progressive movement. Honestly, nobody I know consider them Progressive, some say they had a couple Prog' moments, but I don't.

Iván

bluetailfly wrote: As for the ELO / disco connection, I don't believe ELO made disco music. I think the music got caught up in the disco craze, much as a lot of music today is remixed in techno format.

I disagree but respect all your points of view, but PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discovery (A play of words for VERY DISCO) and Xanadu were released by ELO, this are clear and evident DISCO albums, so ELO made Disco music.

They didn't remixed old songs in Disco beat, they created 100% Disco albums with 100% of new and original Disco songs and the last album was the soundtrack of a Disco Movie with the Disco star Olivia Newton John, that's a fact that nobody can deny.

Still I feel they were first a Rock band and then a Disco band.

Micky wrote:

Ivan-  the obvious difference in your example, with James Last and Ray Conniff,  is that  ELO were considered 'in the day' a prog group.

Considered Prog by whom? Even though I'm not an old timer as someone said (I'm only 41), I WAS THERE AT THE LATE 70's, nobody told me stories,. ELO was always a commercial band that was played all day long in commercial radios and no Proghead ever considered them Progressive, innovative maybe, but Prog, never.

Iván

BTW: I hacve each and every ELO album sinces their debut until Discovery, being the last one the only I regret about, I like their music but don't believe it's Prog.

ivan_2068 wrote: bluetailfly wrote: salmacis wrote: I've never been a particular fan of theirs- some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop. I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not). "Pompous pop" -- what does that mean? Sounds like many of the charges levelled against prog. In terms of arrangement, ELO is progressive IMO, moreso than some bands already accepted as prog. And remember, ELO started out with a mission to push pop rock into more psychedelic and untried territory; they were not a blues-based rock band that decided to make a few concept lps (like Pretty Things or The Who). And they (and Lynne in particular) has achieved this. I think a reassessment of ELO is in order. Too many old timers like Ivan have already made up minds about this and cannot seem to entertain a different perspective. We need another forum debate on this. Yes, I made already my mnind, at least five times some people have asked for ELO and five times have been rejected, enough is enough, they haven't released moire material to at least have an excuse to try again. And honestly I'm tired of intelligent arguments like well Radiohead is here, so ELO deserves to be, or Queen also, so why not ELO. This is absurd, I don't believe Queen or Radiohead should be here (even when Queen are closer than ELO IMHO) and many metal bands have no relation with Prog', but one mistake doesn't allow us to make another one, two wrong choices don't make a good one. If there are bands that don't deserve to be here, ok, it's a mistake, but don't use this as an excuse to make another even worst. ELO was a ROCK band with orchestral (Not Progressive) arrangements (James Last and Ray Conniff had Orchestral arrangements also and nobody except some lunatic would say they are Prog), and to make more clear their mainstream orientation they abandoned Rock and embraced Disco, the structure of their songs is oriented towards Rock or Disco and not towards Prog. A friend told me Rockaria was Prog'  Yes, they had a guy that could make the voice of an Opera Prima Donna and the song has lots of violin and cellos, but it's nothing except plain Rockabilly. But they had their chance and the majority decided, so lets move on. Iván

I appreciate the response, but I would disagree with the comment that "ELO was a ROCK band with orchestral (Not Progressive) arrangements." This is what I specifically disagree with, as I said in my earlier post. ELO was never a "rock band." From the start, they took rock structures and pushed into different directions -- that was what Lynne set out to do. In fact, I think he said something like, 'ELO has picked up where "I am the Walrus" left off." That sounds like a rather progressive vision, esp. for the early 70s.

As for Queen being more prog than ELO, I disagree with that because Queen is primarily a rock band. They started out as a rock band and they stayed true to it most of the time (which is great; I love Queen).

As for the ELO / disco connection, I don't believe ELO made disco music. I think the music got caught up in the disco craze, much as a lot of music today is remixed in techno format.

The bottom line is, I don't believe many members have really familiarized themselves with all of ELO's ouvre (especially the early lps) and so cannot meaningfully comment upon it. The forum needs a discussion with members who are familiar with all of ELOs output so that an informed debate can begin.

salmacis wrote: I've never been a particular fan of theirs- some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop. I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not).

"Pompous pop" -- what does that mean? Sounds like many of the charges levelled against prog.

In terms of arrangement, ELO is progressive IMO, moreso than some bands already accepted as prog. And remember, ELO started out with a mission to push pop rock into more psychedelic and untried territory; they were not a blues-based rock band that decided to make a few concept lps (like Pretty Things or The Who). And they (and Lynne in particular) has achieved this.

I think a reassessment of ELO is in order. Too many old timers like Ivan have already made up minds about this and cannot seem to entertain a different perspective. We need another forum debate on this.

I've never been a particular fan of theirs- some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop.

I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not).

moodyxadi wrote: Well, if Styx and a lot of crap under the label prog metal have a place in this site, the only explanation is that the moderators spent their last seventies dancing Discovery and Xanadu and, regreting of this some years later, deleted ELO from their lives. Seriously, from ELO I to Eldorado ELO was a prog group. Not the best, but a real prog group. On the third day Suite and Kuyama talk for themselves, and Eldorado is a really good pop-gressive rock album.

Don't assume things, ELO has been requested several times and  not been accepted for a simple reason, they never were a Progressive Rock band.

There have even included polls and ELO was rejected by the majority of the members, not the Adms, not the Collaborators, by most of  the members.

They had Orchestral arrangements, used symphony orchestra instruments, but behind all this they were rock (Great rock), all the structuire of their music was simple Rock and later as you well said they became a Disco band.

I love ELO, A New World Record has a place on my CD player always, but still I don't believe they were ever a Prog band.

Iván