Triumph?! Are you kidding me?!?

I sugest to add the glorious Grand Funk Railroad to the prog-related category. They could mix the hard rock fury with prog sensibility (Closer to Home/I'm your captain, Loneliness).

Kidding. I'm a great hard rock fan, but this is a prog site, that atracts people interested in prog rock. Sometimes the visitor can have a wrong perception about the seriousness of PA when he saw Styx and Triumph in the band's list. Almost every rock band from the sixties/seventies can be listed as prog related.

Yeah I'd say that Triumph are perhaps the one band here (though I also doubt ELO and Kate Bush but many do seem to back those two) that I think you're really pushing it to call them anything to do with prog. They made the odd track that verges upon it, but their albums are pretty basic heavy rock for the most part of what I've heard from them. Good band, but not a prog one imo.

okay:

many bands have a few prog elements, and triumph, toto, gamma, simple minds,planet P project, the fixx, yanni, enya, iron maiden and art of noise  belong to this category.

the issue is to determine the point of entry in the prog related section...

have those bands a sufficient level of "progressiveness" to be included here? it is very hard to answer.

we definitely must proceed by comparison.

actually, everything is a matter of personal opinion.

for instance, i do not see why people find barclay james harvest so symphonic progressive: to me, it should go into the prog related section, in the best case. do not get me wrong: i like BJH!

i must admit triumph is REALLY borderline, REALLY!

and NO, triumph has NOTHING to do with rush: triumph has something to do with JOURNEY!

recall than many unexcptected bands can be VERY progressive, like April Wine with their JAW-DROPPING cover of Crimson' 21st century schizoid man, or the inpressive second part of shooting stars' last chance!

The Blinding Light show!

That was prog!

Sean Trane wrote: It seems a lot of people are hung up on their later career which was not prog, but if you listen to their first three albums, there are a few prog tracks. Listen to Kohoutek (a 7 min affair divided in sub-sections ) . the next two or three albums were correct hard rock with the odd prog moments. Once they started doing MTV videos, they became..........;

I can make a couple of very minor tweaks to your comment, and now guess who you're describing ?  And they weren't quite as chauvinistic as Triumph either.

I guess this one just kind of annoys me because it smacks of revisionist history for those like me who remember Triumph "back in the day" and know what kind of a band they really were, and what kind of fan base they had - and it wasn't the same guys who bought Yes and Jethro Tull albums..

There was a short period of time,which ended about 3 months ago,when Max allowed anyone to add bands to the Archive.Triumph was,thankfully,probably the worst abuse of that system which has now been changed.

As it stands only Special Collaborators can add bands to the archive now.Whilst the system isnt fool-proof (there has been one addition recently that has caused consternation-ELO) Spec Collabs are required to consider a number of points:

1.If the band/artist has been in existence for a long time,why hasnt it already been included?
2.If the band/artist is very famous and familiar to our members,why hasn't it already been included?
3.Is there documentary evidence that the band has been linked to,influenced by or been considered an influence on, Prog Rock?
4.Do the band consider themselves to be Prog Rock?
5.Would there inclusion on the site cause surprise or uproar?

If there is any doubt then the inclusion should be referred to a relevant "genre specialist" that we have nominated in the Collabs Zone.Basically all "doubtfuls" should be vetted and agreed by a second party to prevent bad additions.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Tony R wrote: There was a short period of time,which ended about 3 months ago,when Max allowed anyone to add bands to the Archive.Triumph was,thankfully,probably the worst abuse of that system which has now been changed. As it stands only Special Collaborators can add bands to the archive now.Whilst the system isnt fool-proof (there has been one addition recently that has caused consternation-ELO) Spec Collabs are required to consider a number of points: 1.If the band/artist has been in existence for a long time,why hasnt it already been included? 2.If the band/artist is very famous and familiar to our members,why hasn't it already been included? 3.Is there documentary evidence that the band has been linked to,influenced by or been considered an influence on, Prog Rock? 4.Do the band consider themselves to be Prog Rock? 5.Would there inclusion on the site cause surprise or uproar? If there is any doubt then the inclusion should be referred to a relevant "genre specialist" that we have nominated in the Collabs Zone.Basically all "doubtfuls" should be vetted and agreed by a second party to prevent bad additions. Hope this clarifies the situation.

Tony,

I do understand your points, which to be fair you made right up front back when this thread begain.  I'm content in the simple acknowledgement that the admission of Triumph was "the worst abuse of that system" .

Well... I used to like some (few) Triumph's albums... I never considered them neither prog, proto-prog, near-prog... nor whatever. But, I see similarities between (some) Triumph music and Rush music... in the sense that both of them took elements from Led Zeppelin... THAT is all. So, if there are some similarities in their music to a progressive group, do we have to consider them as any prog or proto-prog... (or whatever) and... do they deserve to be be added in this site?. I think NOT. Don't get me wrong, I used to "like" Triumph... and consider their music "entertaining", direct, and funny... but, but... I think they do not have enough elements to be called "progressive" or near it... because they were not even a group which push the boundaries of music to anywhere, and they did not explore and experiment... or even join some element to be called prog... They just laid on Rush's and Led Zeppelin's arguments and stay in that confortable place without going beyond anywhere.

I know it's difficult to stand what may be prog-related or not, based on one or two songs (lperhaps I went too far)... I say so because... I see some Progressive elements in Triumph music, but are they enough to be called a "prog-related" band?. Besides, I don't see the point of naming lots of bands as "prog-related". Doing so, I think we are going nowhere.

Yeah, putting Triumph on a prog. rock site is ridiculous, and rather funny too.  Hey, they ain't prog. rock.

FILE UNDER "HARD ROCK / POWER-POP"

Triumph was a great hard rock band; best albums are Rock 'n' Roll Machine, Just A Game, Allied Forces, Never Surrender and Thunder Seven, which did have a few songs tied thematically together (I just had to put that in there for all the Triumph haters, haha). No, Triumph wasn't a prog band; Triumph was a hard rock trio that took its cues from Dust, Trapeze and other bands that came before them. RELAX, people! And why not pick up the great Live At The US Fest DVD, so you can experience just what a talent the band had in Rik Emmett, vocally and especially on electric lead guitar. He's a lefty who learned to play right, IYKWIM; he's up there with EVH, Blackmore, Page and all those guys. A little respect may be due.  

Putting on my asbestos suit...