Miles Davis to be added to the Prog Archives

MikeEnRegalia wrote: micky wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Bought the vinyl edition of In A Silent Way today ... listening to it now. Great music, but while I certainly see why it's called Jazz-Fusion I don't hear much Rock in it. It's experimental, epic - but in my book it's not "prog". eehhh.. no problem with me Mike...  to be frank... some of the PMT's additions. for example, have been known to raise an questioning eyebrow or two on the 'prog' front. I promise you a few from your friends at Xover as well.   We just call them as we see them and recognize we all have different notions of prog or not.   Thankfully we are collaborators.. not consentioners hahahha.. Nothing would get added. Well, at least with such an inclusion we could open the books on Metallica again ...

debrewguy wrote: You know, after being one of the many that argued that a tenth of of an artist's work shouldn't serve as the basis for inclusion; I have to say that , upon open-minded reflection ... well .....  Miles is not a bad choice to add to PA's data base. Yes, he played a big part in many of "true " Jazz's forms & styles. But he also was part of the initial wave of fusion acts, he influenced many others outside of this "disputed" genre, along with playing a major role in "advancing" music in general. So, if you want to say that you want to include "PROGRESSIVE ARTISTS"  )caps for emphasis(... then MD is one who belongs. Add him to Proto-prog, Jazz Fusion, prog related, whatever. Unlike the Joke-all, I mean Rock N Roll Hall of Fame that let him in  to be hip, reasonable arguements were made for his inclusion here. And yes, as a well known musician, many were able to bring up well meant objections that were valid. BUT, disregard his starting point, never mind where he ended up ! Just see that , for a certain period, his "oeuvre" was deserving of inclusion. And furthermore, as we "honour" groups like Deep Purple, the Doors, and others as "Proto-Prog", Miles surely had a good share of influence on much of the "players" in prog and what they eventually came up with. Hopefully, we carefully consider this as not opening the door to big names as Coltrane, Satie, Montgomery and others. Mostly, as they ... comparatively did not have the same "proof " , if you will, to support their joining the PA  "club".

also... since we are dancing in the minefield.. I'm just to going to step on one.


Next to Miles Davis.. . the next best example of a artist whose career  is generally not regarded as 'prog' that merits inclusion based on their impact on prog.. or a particular sub-genre is...  yep...

Deep Purple.

their clones are in Heavy Prog... and 5 albums that if not undeniably heavy prog.. then VERY debateable which should be enough considering the way this site opeerates. It should be enough to have them placed where they deserve to be. or more than that.. where they are most accurately placed...  I'd like to seethe walls finally get  broken down.. . this site is not about spotlighting 'prog artists' (whatever the hell they are) and dealing with labels that others have put on artists.... but the music... and sometimes the music comes from those who came from other places than prog.. .or went later in other directions after  prog.


Edited by micky - August 09 2008 at 08:10

Easy Money wrote: Hell yeah DP belongs!!! Listen to the jam that comes at the end of Space Truckin on Made in Japan and try to name one other band in the world that can play like that.

jams...? is that the new length of prog rock these days?

Overall, I think Deep Purple are fine-enough hard rock, so they can stay in PR. About the "clone"-bands in HP, the genre was actually designated to draw some of its juice from hard rock.

Ricochet wrote: Easy Money wrote: Hell yeah DP belongs!!! Listen to the jam that comes at the end of Space Truckin on Made in Japan and try to name one other band in the world that can play like that. jams...? is that the new length of prog rock these days?Overall, I think Deep Purple are fine-enough hard rock, so they can stay in PR. About the "clone"-bands in HP, the genre was actually designated to draw some of its juice from hard rock.

Hi Phillip, I understand your point. I meant 'jam' in the broad modern sense of the word, ie almost any music can be called a jam.

Although it is not Supper's Ready or Karn Evil 9, if you listen to the semi-improvised piece of music I am referring to you can hear Lord and Blackmore's tendency to turn their solos into mini-compositions within a song. It is true that DP's music lacked in prog output as the years went by, but their long version of River Deep Mountain High was the first prog song I ever heard and it made me eager to seek out the likes of Crimson, Yes etc.

micky wrote: Ricochet wrote: Easy Money wrote: Hell yeah DP belongs!!! Listen to the jam that comes at the end of Space Truckin on Made in Japan and try to name one other band in the world that can play like that. Overall, I think Deep Purple are fine-enough hard rock, so they can stay in PR. About the "clone"-bands in HP, the genre was actually designated to draw some of its juice from hard rock. hard rock?...oh no... and heavy prog was created for the bands that ...well.. quite simply...  that imitated Deep Purple.  Strongly Hammond based.. 'heavy'  progressive rock.

better talk with David...it isn't an all cloning-Deep Purp-and-Led Zep genre.

and...are Deep Purple not hard rock? have they not played hard rock?

and for those who think that Deep Purple should be kept out of Heavy prog because they were not 'known' as a prog group.. again... neither is Genesis.  You can't judge A one way.. and not view B the same way. Both became 'famous' as something other than as a prog group.


Edited by micky - August 09 2008 at 09:52

micky wrote: and for those who think that Deep Purple should be kept out of Heavy prog because they were not 'known' as a prog group.. again... neither is Genesis.  You can't judge A one way.. and not view B the same way. Both became 'famous' as something other than as a prog group.

I thought Genesis was regarded as a prog group during the progressive rock boom (as well as an art rock band), and, of course, is considered a Prog group for their '70s output.  I don't think Deep Purple ever became part of the Prog canon like Genesis did.

Speaking personally, and so it means nothing from an argument standpoint: 25 years ago, I thought of Genesis (referring to the Gabriel years I knew) as Prog, along with groups like Yes, Jethro Tull, Focus and Rush, but thought of Deep Purple as proggy.

Logan wrote: micky wrote: and for those who think that Deep Purple should be kept out of Heavy prog because they were not 'known' as a prog group.. again... neither is Genesis.  You can't judge A one way.. and not view B the same way. Both became 'famous' as something other than as a prog group. I thought Genesis was regarded as a prog group during the progressive rock boom (as well as an art rock band), and, of course, is considered a Prog group for their '70s output.  I don't think Deep Purple ever became part of the Prog canon like Genesis did.

Greg...  my post.. was a targeted one... as per my usual style.. I was speaking to certain people... without quoting.  That was directed at those who base inclusion and placement here on the 'fear' factor.. or worse.. tags and labels others have put on groups without actually considering the 'music'.  That having Deep Purple in a fully prog sub-genre would cause the unwashed masses to riot and generally have a coniption fit because they are not known as prog.  Now... in texts in progressive rock.. damn near every one that I have read .. ALL have mentioned Deep Purple.  Just who is it that doesn't consider DP a progressive rock group.. .yep.. those outside of prog who make their livings pigeonholing groups and putting tags on them.  My point is... what tag has been thrown on Genesis by these so called 'experts'.. yep.. their best known incarnation...as a pop group.  The same as Deep Purple... who after 1974.. were as Rico called it.. a good hard rock group.  Funny thing is... after the mid 70's.. a hell of a lot of groups began to get a lot less 'progressive' .  That was my point.

micky wrote: Logan wrote: micky wrote: and for those who think that Deep Purple should be kept out of Heavy prog because they were not 'known' as a prog group.. again... neither is Genesis.  You can't judge A one way.. and not view B the same way. Both became 'famous' as something other than as a prog group. I thought Genesis was regarded as a prog group during the progressive rock boom (as well as an art rock band), and, of course, is considered a Prog group for their '70s output.  I don't think Deep Purple ever became part of the Prog canon like Genesis did. Greg...  my post.. was a targeted one... as per my usual style.. I was speaking to certain people... without quoting.  That was directed at those who base inclusion and placement here on the 'fear' factor.. or worse.. tags and labels others have put on groups without actually considering the 'music'.  That having Deep Purple in a fully prog sub-genre would cause the unwashed masses to riot and generally have a coniption fit because they are not known as prog.  Now... in texts in progressive rock.. damn near every one that I have read .. ALL have mentioned Deep Purple.  Just who is it that doesn't consider DP a progressive rock group.. .yep.. those outside of prog who make their livings pigeonholing groups and putting tags on them.  My point is... what tag has been thrown on Genesis by these so called 'experts'.. yep.. their best known incarnation...as a pop group.  The same as Deep Purple... who after 1974.. were as Rico called it.. a good hard rock group.  Funny thing is... after the mid 70's.. a hell of a lot of groups began to get a lot less 'progressive' .  That was my point.

Understood.