are The Grateful Dead that prog related?yes / not?

Peter wrote:  How's this for a definition? PROG FAN: a person who obsessively and compulsively over-intellectualizes and analyzes music, pronouncing some to be worthy (and thus "prog") but most as unworthy. No two "prog" fans will ever agree upon these distinctions, however, and they will argue endlessly on the scope of the term they would use to separate their supposedly high-brow music from that of the bleating, sheep-like masses (See also proghole, progsnob, file clerk, art rock accountant, dweeb and nerd -- also the related pain-in-the-ass, party-pooper, buzz killer, and insufferable pompous wet blanket. )

   this one's for wiki, Peter

sigh

Edited by Peter - June 17 2008 at 01:57

stonebeard wrote: I'm talking about consistency. Santana's here. The Dead aren't. Phish is here. The Dead aren't. That is inconsistent. If I cared enough about the Dead, I probably could give you an argument  as to why they should be in prog-related, a genre which I think is doing more trouble than good. But the point remains: if Phish are here, a band that essentially is the Dead, then they should be as well.

you are not listening Andrew.. .there is NO consistency to be had in PR additions... this site IS  consistent and strives to be comprehensive where it matters...pursuing prog additions to the database... .NOT PR additions.  They are targeted additions for various reasons... and the category is not intended to have any and every group that is PR.  You agree with the Dead being in PR...  but will you be the first to bitch about a band you do NOT think is PR enough.  If you don't...  you would be one of the very few here that wouldn't.. we see it all the time.  Face it.. people have their notions of Prog.. or what is related to prog.. and have demonstrated TIME AND TIME AGAIN.. that they are unable to see past THEIR notions and see that others see things differently.

The site doesn't need that kind of sh*t at all... we have enough with fully prog additions

Why else do you think the admin team has strict control on Prog Related  additions...  and I think we all would agree the last thing we want or need our admins to become is 'full-time' PR genre team members screening every Tom, Dick and Harry that got submitted if indeed we strove to be consistent and have every group that was remotely prog related.


Edited by micky - June 16 2008 at 20:18

With all this controversy surrounding the prog related genre, there are bands with much more prog or prog-related songs being denied from prog related than bands being included in "full prog" genres.

I say pass. I think this is more of a case of "I want to see this band in PA!" than anything having to do with actual influence or prog-relation.

I hope my above point was clear... It wasn't about the rightness of the "if X is here, why not Y?" approach, but rather about consistency (or lack thereof). Either we find a method to the 'madness' that is the whole Prog-Related category, or I'm afraid threads such as this will continue to exist, and sometimes even descend in less than dignified discussions.

I think Stonie has a very good point here (and yes, Umphrey McGee's are here too, in Jazz-Rock/Fusion). Even if I am not by any means an expert in any of those bands, I've heard Phish compared to the Dead often enough to wonder at the consistency of having one here and not the other.

Actually, the main problem with having a Prog-Related category is exactly that, in my very humble opinion... That 'relation' can very easily become like the notorious game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", i.e. a chain of associations that can often lead away from what we generally consider as prog. 

stonebeard wrote: GD certainly belong here more than Phish... I recognize Jam Band, as a genre, so they cannot be fully prog, IMO. I also think Prog-related is a dubious genre, but the Dead deserve to be in there if anyone does.

then explain my friend.. for the ignorant types among us hahha

just how is the Dead.. related to prog... and explain why they should be here... in terms that do not involve 'because someone else is here' .  Two wrong don't make a right.. I'm a huge J.A. fan.. and regardless of what Hugues says... I disagree strongly with their inclusion as well... but there is nothing to be done about that.

Pnoom! wrote: zicIy wrote: Pnoom! wrote: For the record, I don't really think Zappa belongs here, either, except maybe for his jazz-fusion stuff (Hot Rats, Grand Wazoo, and the like).   ok, that´s your opinion, i´d to respect that. for the record too, my first concert was Uriah Heep (High and Mighty tour), and i´v been very surprised and delighted when i saw UH at PA. i´v been thinking all these years that was hard rock (awesome!) gig. but, anyway, i can feel proud now, the first concert was one great Prog act, nothing less!   Being on progarchives doesn't make a band prog i know...as i saw that in UH 'case' . I don't know Uriah Heep, but I'm just saying. they were such a great hard rock -LIVE - act, but NOTHING in common with Prog i personaly dont heard at the gig; i owned already some progressive rock ("sympho-rock" we were call that) LPs at that time, 13yrs old í was and i 'instantly' falled in love with that music so you can trust me. btw, i never owned any UH album, but as i said, that hard rock show was really great; i mean, who don´t enjoyed an EXELLENT gig of some hard rock band (be that Uriah Heep or AC/DC, or some new one, anyway), who feel bored and dont moved his/her leg along that rythm that person dont like ROCK music at all, no question.

clarke2001 wrote: GD were not prog, the "genre" where they belong (and cultural and artistic movement in general= is known, and there's no need to analyse it. That hippy trippy thingie is in a way related to his baby born few years later, called prog rock.

well said...perfect.