| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
John Gargo 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 450
|
 Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:22 |
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. 
|
 |
TheProgtologist
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:28 |
 John Gargo wrote:
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. |
His solo work,especially his earlier stuff,is pure glam rock.I don't see anything progressive about it.
|
|
|
|
gdub411
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3484
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:29 |
John Gargo wrote:
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. |
This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:29 |
John Gargo wrote:
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. |
He has already been rejected.
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:31 |
bluetailfly wrote:
I would just like to add my opinion into the fray here:
Look, if you're going to add the Beatles and the Doors et al., then change the name of the website. Clearly, the focus of the website has moved out and beyond progressive rock.
|
Please read my post.
This isnt Rocket Science you know!
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:38 |
gdub411 wrote:
John Gargo wrote:
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. |
This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.
|
Please re-read my post.
This is obviously proving too difficult to grasp.
If you created a site to documentThe History Of The Second World War would you only deal with events from 1st Sept 1939 until the Japanese surrender or does one also include the causes?
*where's the emoticon for "tearing one's hair out in frustration" when you need it..?
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:39 |
gdub411 wrote:
John Gargo wrote:
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. |
This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.
|
I'd hardly call the Beatles mediochre.
And they're Prog-Related/Proto-Prog - there was no Prog Rock before them and they're largely responsible for helping to bring it about.
ALL pop/rock music is related to the Beatles. They're welcome at every party. 
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:42 |
Certif1ed wrote:
gdub411 wrote:
John Gargo wrote:
So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives. I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. |
This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.
|
I'd hardly call the Beatles mediochre.
And they're Prog-Related/Proto-Prog - there was no Prog Rock before them and they're largely responsible for helping to bring it about.
ALL pop/rock music is related to the Beatles. They're welcome at every party.
|
If you read my original post, neither do I.
|
|
Flip_Stone
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 388
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:42 |
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:51 |
Flip_Stone wrote:
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
Other things DO make the Beatles progressive - you're oversimplifying everything - including Deep Purple.
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:51 |
Flip_Stone wrote:
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
Actually, in a sense of propelling music in a different direction they were progressive, but they are NOT prog. Marillion and Arena aren't progressive but ARE prog. There is the difference.
Tony...is this a progressive history site or a site where we can find lots of information about progressive rock bands.? Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then, such as Elvis and Buddy Holly? How far back in history do we go? Perhaps we should include great classical and jazz musicians. Do we not draw a line somewhere?
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:53 |
Flip_Stone wrote:
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!!
They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!
|
|
Manunkind
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 2373
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 12:58 |
Tony R wrote:
Flip_Stone wrote:
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!!
They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!
|
Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.
|
|
"In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:01 |
Greg W wrote:
Tony...is this a progressive history site or a site where we can find lots of information about progressive rock bands.? Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then, such as Elvis and Buddy Holly? How far back in history do we go? Perhaps we should include great classical and jazz musicians. Do we not draw a line somewhere?
|
You've answered your own question:Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then
These "rock pioneers" are not directly relevant.
This is getting silly.We want to be #1 and a one-stop reference resource.
|
|
Ounamahl
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 13 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 245
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:02 |
|
I actually think it is good that Beatles is here, it may bring here
more people that gets into Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd and so on!
Why all this whine? Don't you want more proggers? ... sigh...
|
|
This is an electrified fairytale
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:03 |
|
The Beatles are my favourite band and they deserve a mention here for laying the foundations for prog rock, but to include their discography is wrong imo. They are by no stretch of the imagination a "prog rock" band.
And I'm going to have to review all their albums now!
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:05 |
Manunkind wrote:
Tony R wrote:
Flip_Stone wrote:
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!!
They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!
|
Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.
|
Well wouldn't Mozart be considered for the proto prog catagory? Proto Prog and Prog Related just flat out need to be removed. There is no need for those so called sub genres to be included. Those catagories are too broad and therefore offer no merit.
|
|
The Miracle
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 28427
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:05 |
I see no problem with it, since they are added as proto prog... They definitely did have a huge influence on prog, as they did on all other major rock genres, really. Proto prog is for bands that influenced prog, and were not (by modern standards) "prog".
And keep in mind, that during their times, they were the most progressive thing ever!
|
|
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:08 |
The Miracle wrote:
I see no problem with it, since they are added as proto prog... They definitely did have a huge influence on prog, as they did on all other major rock genres, really. Proto prog is for bands that influenced prog, and were not (by modern standards) "prog".
And keep in mind, that during their times, they were the most progressive thing ever!
|
Progressive yes. Prog no. Get rid of Proto Prog and Prog Related is what I say.
|
|
Manunkind
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 2373
|
Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:14 |
Greg W wrote:
Manunkind wrote:
Tony R wrote:
Flip_Stone wrote:
Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick. Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog. They were very innovative, original, and influential. They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days. But that does NOT make them progressive!!
The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant. I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive. Even their early stuff isn't progressive. It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then. It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.
Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here. Yeah dude, they're progressive. NOT!
|
Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!!
They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!
|
Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.
|
Well wouldn't Mozart be considered for the proto prog catagory? Proto Prog and Prog Related just flat out need to be removed. There is no need for those so called sub genres to be included. Those catagories are too broad and therefore offer no merit.
|
I'm inclined to agree with you. 'Proto-prog' and 'prog-related' bands could be mentioned in articles devoted to the history of prog, but should not be fully included. However, since the categories have been given regular 'sub-genre' status, The Beatles have to be in. And no, you couldn't go back as far as Mozart, you'd have to stop on the moment of the birth of rock and roll at the earliest.
|
|
"In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles. Here. Why?
