Peter Gabriel: prog RELATED??

I don't he would be seen as Art Rock if he had the same music but his name wasn't Peter Gabriel. I think if some dude named Tony R (just an example) released So or Up, it would be seen as Prog Related at best.

I really like his solo career though.

hmmmm.... thinking it over..... not certain of AR status... not flatly against idea either.

bhikkhu wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Prog-related. He is a bit too poppy for my taste. Especially "So" was a very big disappointment.      I still get confused every time I see Gabriel referred to as pop. He may have had a few songs that had a bit of a pop feel, and some hits, but he is far from a pop artist.

    
You're right! Man, listen to SO, the so-called ultra-pop release by Gabriel (the exaggeration was mine )... We have a couple very pop songs, but even those songs are NOT your average rock-pop! And we have a couple of no-pop songs, too! So even that most-poppy of albums (according to many) is not as pop as, say, my good friend and respected artist Phil Collins (whose music I like, I admit it). It's not pop, it's art-rock. Besides that, why do we have to judge a musicians' whole output by just their poppiest album? I'd say we have to see their output in general, and then decide.

andu wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: Edit: if Radiohead are in Art Rock, I don't see why PG should be in PR. I don't really see Radiohead as proggier that PG. A-HA! I made a printscreen of that! An Admin using the "If X belongs to A and Y=X, then Y also belongs to A" argument!

I think for once that equation WORKS here!

You see, is different when you say "If X is in PA, then Y has to be, too". In that case, we're talking HAVING A NEW ARTIST IN THE ARCHIVES, so if the Admin. Team chooses wrong, they would be actually DAMAGING THE SITE's CREDIBILITY, so when we're discussing (well, when we discuss and the Admin. Team. decides ) an entrance into the Archives, serious thought is needed.

Now, the equation "if X = P, Y = P, and Z > or = than P, then Z is equal to P, also!!! (any math student here, don't bash me please, it's just T'rigonometrics, not trigonometrics ). If we have less-proggy bands in the Art-rock genre, (Radiohead is great but really...), so what harm is done to the site if a proggier-artists is listed under that category, too? We're not including someone who isn't prog in a prog site, we're just putting him where he belongs.

It's all a matter of arithmetics, geometry, and a few factored polynomials.

Ghost Rider wrote: bluetailfly wrote: I would like to preface my opinion by saying that this whole categorization game is really getting a tad insane... But having said that, Peter Gabriel's solo work to me is simply progressive rock, I don't know what sub-genre it fits into, and I really am not that enamoured of all the sub-categorizations, it's too beauracratic.   The man is a giant in the founding generation of prog. That's enough. All his subsequent work grows out of his work with Genesis, there's an organic progression of growth. I don't think he grew out or away from prog rock, he just kept developing his own niche. If anything, he is further defining prog rock, he's blazing the trail.   Enough with the freaking categorizations already... Like it or not, this site does have categories, or subgenres, and we're supposed to use them as guidelines in order to help users (especially people who are getting into prog) with becoming more familiar with the various incarnations and definitions of Prog. Unless the owners decide to abolish aforesaid categories, we of the Genre Teams try to find the best possible collocation for each and every one of the bands or artists included in the site's database. I'm curious as to what you would suggest, though... Perhaps, taking PG out of Prog-Related and having him as a category of his own? It is easy to criticise the site's organisation and the (admittedly often tiresome) discussions on the forum - less so to suggest viable alternatives.

Edited by bluetailfly - January 23 2007 at 12:17

bluetailfly wrote: I would like to preface my opinion by saying that this whole categorization game is really getting a tad insane... But having said that, Peter Gabriel's solo work to me is simply progressive rock, I don't know what sub-genre it fits into, and I really am not that enamoured of all the sub-categorizations, it's too beauracratic.   The man is a giant in the founding generation of prog. That's enough. All his subsequent work grows out of his work with Genesis, there's an organic progression of growth. I don't think he grew out or away from prog rock, he just kept developing his own niche. If anything, he is further defining prog rock, he's blazing the trail.   Enough with the freaking categorizations already...

Like it or not, this site does have categories, or subgenres, and we're supposed to use them as guidelines in order to help users (especially people who are getting into prog) with becoming more familiar with the various incarnations and definitions of Prog. Unless the owners decide to abolish aforesaid categories, we of the Genre Teams try to find the best possible collocation for each and every one of the bands or artists included in the site's database.

I'm curious as to what you would suggest, though... Perhaps, taking PG out of Prog-Related and having him as a category of his own? It is easy to criticise the site's organisation and the (admittedly often tiresome) discussions on the forum - less so to suggest viable alternatives.

andu wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: Edit: if Radiohead are in Art Rock, I don't see why PG should be in PR. I don't really see Radiohead as proggier that PG. A-HA! I made a printscreen of that! An Admin using the "If X belongs to A and Y=X, then Y also belongs to A" argument!

Ah, you got me... How much do you want in order not to expose my guilty secret?

BTW, if the poll results remain as they are now, I'll see about moving him to Art Rock - provided Micky agrees as well (and he will, or else....).

Prog-related. He is a bit too poppy for my taste. Especially "So" was a very big disappointment.

MANDRAKEROOT wrote: Uhm... African Prog?

For me he's one of the best excamples of the former definition of Art-Rock (the more pop-focussed style of prog), but he should off course be labelled under progressive and not related.

Phil Collins should be added under related, just like Mike & The Mechanicxs and probable Banks also.