| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
micky 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
 Posted: June 18 2008 at 21:50 |
 Seyo wrote:
It is only illogical to have JEFFERSON AIRPLANE here in "proto" category and not to have GD. I will leave you to decide without my explicit answer...
|
great breakdown on the albums... and for what it's worth... there is no greater fan on this site.. or hell.. anywhere of J.A. than I am... but I was totally against their inclusion... because even as a new collab at the time.. or maybe I was just distracted and didn't participate in that debate... they open the door to bands that were even less related to prog than the Airplane were.. and they were a stretch ....a BIG stretch of the proto-prog moninker. Same with the insane notion of the Doors addition. The Doors .. proto prog?... sh*t..... However.. they are here. .and there is nothing to do about it... other than draw the line, and remember the rule.. 'two (or three.. or four hahha) wrongs do not make a right' ... so we either draw the line.. and remember just what was prog. .and where it came from.. or we become.. hahha.. consistent... and open the floodgates to EVERYONE with any possible relation to prog out there. Which is a disaster.. for the same people who call for the GD will first first in line to throw stones with a similar stretch of an addition... but that one might be guilty of not being a group they like.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
 |
zicIy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 04 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 413
|
Posted: June 19 2008 at 06:45 |
Seyo wrote:
Peter wrote:
sigh
 You know, I've said it again and again, but no one seems to take much notice -- or perhaps my position is too "extreme":
"Prog" or "progressive" is not exactly a known, clearly-delineated form of music. In fact, it's not even a single "form" of music at all. It's very amorphous, very subjective, very much a value judgment made in a unique fashion by each individual here.
THUS "prog related" (or "proto prog") is even more problematic. Despite what many here seem to pretend, the music this site deems "prog" has no clear boundaries. As soon as you try to define and contain or "encircle" it with mere words, in a manner that will meet with broad approval from music fans from 14 to 64, and whose tastes range from death metal, to classic rock, to folk, jazz, classical, rap etc, etc, etc, some listed bands which do not meet that supposed criteria can be easily found.
The exact nature of "prog" (and what is "related" to it ) is thus not worth arguing about. In fact, I sincerely believe it's pointless (if the point of arguing is to reach resolution, or some form of agreement, or to determine who is right, and who is wrong), because it's all so subjective. Beyond its historic origins and applications (inadequate and subjective then, as well) "prog" is merely a value judgment -- much like "good," "bad" "best," "worst" "overrated/underrated" (retch), etc.
Prog Archives: I love a lot of the listed music, and enjoy the virtual company of many of the great people here.  I care much, much less for the constant bickering and pontification as to "real" prog, inclusion and exclusion, etc. 
Is prog just complicated rock? What about the jazz, metal and folk stuff? Is it complicated MUSIC? Where's the classical & "prog bluegrass," etc, sections, then? (And then someone will say "Pink Floyd's not complicated."
Just face it: "progressive" is a near-useless way to categorize music (beyond your OWN collection, that is). What is "related" to that huge, ever-expanding, undefined, highly-contentious and subjective thingamabobby? Everything else is!
This will never, ever end, because, you see, none of us really knows what the other means by "prog."
Note to self: If you ever start a music-reviewing site, just list all artists alphabetically, and in the broadest categories possible/practical. Just put the so-called "prog rock" in with the ROCK, the "prog metal' in with the METAL, the "prog folk" in with the FOLK, the "prog jazz" (or whatever we call it) in with the JAZZ, etc. 
Much like record stores -- in their wisdom -- do.
These would-be fine, exacting categories suck, IMO. From what I can see, they're only good for starting arguments, "ghettoizing" music, and dividing music fans. (They help you find "similar" music, you say? The highly-subjective nature of "similar" aside, that's what your EARS, and good reviews are for!)
 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. )
But carry on  -- I know you will! 
Indignant, mortally-offended, "just leave then" response posts to follow in 3 - 2 - 1....  |
Peter, I couldn't agree more with you.  I was always against artificial invention of some "sub-genres" and felt that it would be better to have less than to have more sub-categories. Definition and labeling can be a burdensome job and create unneeded frustrations where there is no problem. Even the term prog is questionable as you said, but at least it has a historical reference to 1970s progressive rock.
Maybe you are too harsh when defining prog fans but surely some do deserve it. 
Prog-related category is confusing, but as I remember Max introduced it as a means to expand the addition of other bands that may add value to the PA in terms of attracting more "non-prog" visitors who might be interested to learn of "pure" prog. While I cannot say I entirely agree with this idea, it was up to him to decide.
How this all started? Ah, THE GRATEFUL DEAD! Since I am a big fan of the band (but no, not Deadhead  ) and that I own 99% of their official studio and live albums, I think I can throw a penny or two into this thread.
Without doubt, GD are one of the greatest rock acts in the history. Regarding their genre/category description, I think it is silly idea since their music is the art influenced by plethora of musical elements and legacy. But, to uninitiated, let me try to put it this way:
1. 1967-69, first four albums (s/t debut, Anthem of the Sun, Aoxomoxoa and Live Dead) are genuine psychedelia sprang out of Californian folk-rock, related to JEFFERSON AIRPLANE. There were lots of experimentation with long solos and electronics, both in studio and live context;
2. 1970-73, two studio (Workingmans Dead and American Beauty) and three live (The Grateful Dead, Europe '72 and Bear's Choice), more mainstream country rock and folk rock oriented studio albums with frequent blues and R'n'B covers. In this period they gained reputation of a "jam band" capable of playing long improvisations in concerts.
3. 1973-77, four studio (Wake of the Flood, Mars Hotel, Blues for Allah and Terrapin Station) and a live album (Steal Your Face), they developed an enormous "Wall of Sound" technology for live gigs, resembling the FLOYD's attention to technicalities, these albums contain more elements of jazz and progressive rock, and even traces of electronic/space experiments. Creative peak of the band, at least in terms of studio albums production.
4. 1978-81, two studio (Shakedown Street and Go to Heaven) and two live sets (Dead Set and Reckoning), Declining period, studio albums are weaker containing shorter and radio friendly songs, elements of mainstream American "heartland rock" with usual mixture of country, folk and blues.
5. 1987-90, great come back after 6 years hiatus, commercial peak with album In the Dark. Poor album Built to Last and excellent live set Without a Net with lengthy improvised versions of songs including jazz moments.
Now, that's it excluding their enormous unofficial or semi-official (Dick's Picks) and bootleg live records...
Anyone can tell me where to file this band?  In fact, I don't really care. I just love them  .
It is only illogical to have JEFFERSON AIRPLANE here in "proto" category and not to have GD. I will leave you to decide without my explicit answer...
|
Bravo Seyo !
Edited by zicIy - June 19 2008 at 06:46
|
|
Seyo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320
|
Posted: June 19 2008 at 08:50 |
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: June 19 2008 at 20:20 |
Seyo wrote:
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR. |
not to piss on your idea Seyo... but... hahhaha... and just how were they NOT prog... the group is classified
PR for the whole of their career.. ... those albums you mentioned were as prog as damn near anything out there.
Hense... the fatal flaw to that idea. If rating individual albums... they groups by proxy, that would give people heart attacks if they were seen anywhere NEAR a fully prog sub-genre. .would be forced to be added in prog subs. Let's be frank.. want to see Ivan's head explode... then add Queen... or a portion of Queen in symphonic.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
|
Posted: June 20 2008 at 03:44 |
If anyone wants me to take this (GD) to the Admin team for a final decision, just let me know. Please only do so though if you are prepared to do the work to add the band if permission is given. (We have a few where permission has been given who have not been added yet).
|
|
Seyo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320
|
Posted: June 20 2008 at 04:20 |
micky wrote:
Seyo wrote:
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR. |
not to piss on your idea Seyo... but...
hahhaha... and just how were they NOT prog... the group is classified PR for the whole of their career.. ... those albums you mentioned were as prog as damn near anything out there. Hense... the fatal flaw to that idea. If rating individual albums... they groups by proxy, that would give people heart attacks if they were seen anywhere NEAR a fully prog sub-genre. .would be forced to be added in prog subs. Let's be frank.. want to see Ivan's head explode... then add Queen... or a portion of Queen in symphonic.
|
I mentioned Queen only as example because of previous heated debates on their inclusion. I am not really an expert for them, except that I genuinely dislike them  For me there is nothing "prog" in their music... 
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: June 20 2008 at 09:57 |
Seyo wrote:
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR. |
This would never work. If we have problems to determine which bands are worthy to the site, imagine to determine which albums are worthy. Taking Beatles as an example, IMO, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album and Abbey Road are what make their inclusion justifiable. Imagine what kind of debates we would have over their inclusion, haven't they been added yet, if we were to determine which albums were worthy inclusion.
Edited by akin - June 20 2008 at 09:58
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 20 2008 at 10:16 |
akin wrote:
Seyo wrote:
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR. |
This would never work. If we have problems to determine which bands are worthy to the site, imagine to determine which albums are worthy. Taking Beatles as an example, IMO, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album and Abbey Road are what make their inclusion justifiable. Imagine what kind of debates we would have over their inclusion, haven't they been added yet, if we were to determine which albums were worthy inclusion.
|
True. Include every album and let the reviewers decide - that way instead of being stuck with the opinion of a few collaborators who have decided which albums are eligible, you get the opinions of (potentially) 19,000 members through their reviews and ratings.
|
|
What?
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: June 20 2008 at 17:49 |
Seyo wrote:
micky wrote:
Seyo wrote:
Thanks! :)
Again, I think these debates would not have happened, should the decision have been made to have only particular, individual albums for proto-prog and prog-related categories rather than entire band discographies!
So for instance, only say Revolver and Sgt. Pepper of all Beatles would qualify for PP, and perhaps only first three of all Queen albums would qualify for PR. |
not to piss on your idea Seyo... but...
hahhaha... and just how were they NOT prog... the group is classified PR for the whole of their career.. ... those albums you mentioned were as prog as damn near anything out there. Hense... the fatal flaw to that idea. If rating individual albums... they groups by proxy, that would give people heart attacks if they were seen anywhere NEAR a fully prog sub-genre. .would be forced to be added in prog subs. Let's be frank.. want to see Ivan's head explode... then add Queen... or a portion of Queen in symphonic.
|
I mentioned Queen only as example because of previous heated debates on their inclusion. I am not really an expert for them, except that I genuinely dislike them For me there is nothing "prog" in their music... |
hahhah... I am not a fan either.. but silly me... whether something is prog or not is rather independent of whether I like a group or not. 
Edited by micky - June 20 2008 at 17:50
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Seyo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320
|
Posted: June 22 2008 at 04:27 |
True. I bite my tongue... 
|
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member
Italian Prog Specialist
Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 12:11 |
Easy Livin wrote:
If anyone wants me to take this (GD) to the Admin team for a final decision, just let me know. Please only do so though if you are prepared to do the work to add the band if permission is given. (We have a few where permission has been given who have not been added yet).
|
It is not easy to decide whether the Grateful Dead are PP or PR. I believe that both categories are fine. Frankly I would be more for PR.
|
|
listen
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Portland OR
Status: Offline
Points: 352
|
Posted: August 23 2008 at 20:55 |
|
I wanted to suggest the Dead for prog related and searched and found this so I'll post my thoughts here. I definitely hear progressiveness in Blues for Allah and Terrapin Station and a bit in Wake of the Flood too. The dead started experimenting in the studio in the mid 70's, having a more progressive sound with much more structure and longer, multi-part compositions often containing some odd times. I would not say that the dead are a very progressive band in general, just like the beatles. But they did produce some progressive music in the mid 70s.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: August 23 2008 at 21:02 |
|
there's little doubt the Dead had a strong progressive, album-oriented phase.. the thing to remember is that many artists - nay, almost every artist by about 1975 - had done or wanted to do some sort of art album.. that's what you did if you wanted to participate in that extraordinary time, heck you might have even sold a few LPs, it was almost a fad (in a good way) ..and so we have to be very careful about who to add to ProgRelated, especially based on only two or three proggie albums, or it would be nearly every rock, jazz and pop recording artist between about 1969 and 1976
Edited by Atavachron - August 23 2008 at 21:04
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: August 23 2008 at 21:55 |
|
the same answer I gave Raff when she asked me.. whether I thought the ABB (one of my favorite bands of ALL time for those who think I love to add favorites) should be here. Great music.. full of lots of influences... but just not prog... or even related...
Proto.... especially for the Dead is always an option.. especially considering the direction the site has taken regarding 'proto' addtions from that particular scene of music in the late 60's
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
are The Grateful Dead that prog related?yes / not?