Dire Straits: Prog-Related? YES.

OK, still trying to maintain some clear structure while answering your specific points. If I've missed any specific point of yours which you feel is important, feel free to reiterate it for me. I thought keeping everything clearly formatted was in the interests of meaningful debate.

---

On the six points

They simply mix elements, not something particularyly complex or elaborate
That's exactly what's implied by the 'Mixture of elements from different genres.' bit, no? Personally, I think there's some pretty subtle classical and jazz-influenced touches underneath the folk and rock underpinning some of the songwriting.

Lush keyboards. Not particularly
Synthesiser, piano and organ alternately throughout the majority of the album, including a further guest synth operator, none of which seem to me to be especially stuck in the rock vein. The further additions of vibes and marimba, which have the same rough effect on a couple of tracks.

• Explorative and intelligent lyrics, in some cases close to fantasy literature, Sci Fi and even political issues. I agree, so Cat Stevens, Bob Dylan, etc and with more credentials are not here, because they are not Prog

Yes, intelligent lyrics alone don't make a prog band. On the other hand, in conjunction with other evidence, they imply progressiveness.

• Non commercial approach Please, they always were a COMMRCIAL band, is incredible not to accept this

It's incredible and ridiculous to suggest that opening an album with a fifteen minute song was a commercial move in 1982. [/shoutingbigtext] Rolling Stone suggested the band was committing 'commercial suicide' and 'in a period when most pop music is conceived purely as product, Love Over Gold dares to put art before airplay. '. The album lacks an obvious single cut, and every song is over five and a half minutes long, IIRC. Suggesting that Love Over Gold is commercial, especially given that much of the band's previous success had come from the smooth, fairly concise single, Sultans of Swing, is beyond silly.

• Longer format of songs A few long songs are not Prog

1. "Telegraph Road" – 14:15
2. "Private Investigations" – 6:45
3. "Industrial Disease" – 5:49
4. "Love over Gold" – 6:16
5. "It Never Rains" – 7:54

Length isn't a definite clincher in and of itself. On the other hand, in conjunction with other evidence, it strongly implies progressiveness, particularly when, as on Telegraph Road and Private Investigations, it allows for sophisticated structures.

---

General remarks on prog credentials.

Please is not a clearly Prog album, at the bast with shady relations with Prog Related, not enough

It obviously fulfils five of the six suggested criteria for a symphonic prog album, and it's got some innovative touches, and given the sixth is hardly necessary, I personally think that's enough to say it's 'clearly' a prog album

You've entirely missed the point of that paragraph. You've also managed to pull out a clause which makes no sense whatsoever to me ('in this case it's absurd') - maybe you're investing my words with meanings that certainly weren't intended, but I don't see exactly what you're referring to. I was simply using the 'retro-prog' movement (which is a widely used term, anyway) to provide generic examples of bands which would be easier to add.

A complete facepalm at the suggestion that Dire Straits play 'wattered pop, AOR, country'.

I was suggesting that, just because it's easier to add various other artists, who are more generally agreed upon, I didn't see the need to give up on considering or suggesting the addition of other, potentially worthy artists.

Just to keep my arguments clear, I'm not responding to specific sentences, though I believe I've herein answered all the substance of your post (for instance, the 'a song in a career' point is answered by the first paragraph, though I haven't made an effort in clearly highlighting that).   THE SONG....That's all. not enough

I was, obviously, saying that the whole album was progressive.By fairly obvious implication, that responds to the suggestion that one song isn't enough for an inclusion. I even drew attention to that.

The administratiors, the vast majority of members and all the Prog sites disagree with you, there must be a reason

That doesn't mean that reason is right. I think, for a lot of people, the reason is that people don't agree with the one-album=band inclusion policy, or think it would lead to ridiculous results if applied in this case. I suspect there wouldn't be all that many who'd be against Love Over Gold alone being in the PR or Crossover categories.

---

Comparison to SFAJT

Script For A Jester's Tear and Love Over Gold are actually pretty damn similar from a stylistic point of view. Instrumentation, structure, dramatic flair, progressive rock created with an awareness of the mainstream. I'd say the latter is actually more 'progressive' as an album, in that it's creating progressive rock without clearly referencing previous progressive rock acts. Yes, it has one or two folk elements, a couple of pop elements (well, basically, it's only got melodies in that respect... it certainly doesn't conform to pop structures), and one more regularly structured (but nonetheless pretty bizarre) rocker, but really, these grounds of reference do not define the substance of the album. Scheherezade and Other Stories, for instance, though it leans heavily on classical and jazz props, is clearly a progressive rock album. Likewise, Love Over Gold. There's no relation in complexity, structure, influebnces, sound, indiovidual performances (except mark Knopfler). in nothing at all, not saying that Dire Strait is a bad band, simply not Prog at all, while Marillion is a pure Prog band.

Personally, I'd say that sound is similar in some respects (the drumming for both is 'AOR'-styled, and somewhat blunter than the remaining material, though Pick Withers is evidently somewhat more talented and subtle than Pointer, imo): both have fairly 80s production. In terms of complexity, Love Over Gold is generally considered to be 'increased musical complexity' on the start of Dire Straits, while Script has never seemed very complex to me. In terms of structure, well, the reliance on explosive bursts from out of moody, downcast passages is a common feature. Script is hardly a pure prog album, really, given that Chelsea Monday is somewhat a generic guitar-heroics rocker with some vestigial references to The Wall. Anyway, given that I've yet to see you, in all your many arguments here, actually change your position from your starting position, I'm obviously not going to persuade you of this.

Yeah, I'm not saying they're the same album, but I think there are a lot of similarities in style and approach.

Edit:

TonyR wrote: There seems to be a concerted effort to see every rock band in history that is highly-regarded for its musicianship elevated to Prog or Prog-Related status. How sad.

An admin seems to be trolling an addition suggestions thread. I'm not complaining.


Edited by TGM: Orb - May 10 2009 at 10:45

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Tony R wrote: There seems to be a concerted effort to see every rock band in history that is highly-regarded for its musicianship elevated to Prog or Prog-Related status. How sad.   Progressive Rock is a GENRE, NOT A STATUS,

No that's completely wrong. Otherwise, fusion, post-rock/metal and others would not be on this site. Prog rock is a mindset, and to me, that mindset is not really shown in Dir Straits, but to be fair, I haven't heard the album most of you are talking about.

kenethlevine wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: No ABB, then no Dire Straits. forgive my ignorance but who is ABB?

StyLaZyn wrote: kenethlevine wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: No ABB, then no Dire Straits. forgive my ignorance but who is ABB? The Allman Bros. Band My comment was not well received. I feel that ABB is much more Prog-like than Dire Straits. ABB was shot down, but I wasn't the first to bring it up either.

Thanks!  I only know a few songs by them and one, memory of elizabeth reid, sounds pretty prog related.

I've pretty much given up on trying to understand prog related as a genre here because there are so many bands in it that I don't agree with, while others are not here that I feel are at least as deserving, so unless a band merits a higher sub genre, like crossover or something more directly prog, I don't bother to fight it.

In some sense, it's hard to conceive of any remotely serious band in the progressive era not being prog related, just because they were there and influences rubbed off.  I understand the argument of primarily prog vs primarily rock/blues etc, but I think that's a hard thing to determine, and I don't see Bowie or Zeppelin as primarily progressive any more than, say, early Fleetwood Mac or Cat Stevens.  I know people here always re-iterate that we cannot judge whether a band should be included based on whether another band should be included, but to me that is a pretty important consideration and difficult to ignore. Just my 0.02 CAD 


Edited by kenethlevine - May 10 2009 at 11:18

Tony R wrote: There seems to be a concerted effort to see every rock band in history that is highly-regarded for its musicianship elevated to Prog or Prog-Related status. How sad.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Or maybe people want to say they only listen Prog, so lets turn every bandv we like into Prog to keep our record clean.

Do we really need derogatory and sweeping generalisations like this in what has so far been a fair discussion with differing opinions? I really think it's belittling the whole thing.

I just think it's unnecessary since it's just an open forum discussion, where you try to change each other's minds. Should it ever reach evaluation, you're still free to reject it.   

LinusW wrote: I just think it's unnecessary since it's just an open forum discussion, where you try to change each other's minds. Should it ever reach evaluation, you're still free to reject it.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 10 2009 at 11:58

Mm... some selections, and some thoughts.

I personally love a fair few songs by The Beach Boys, Talking Heads, Bob Dylan and the Afro-Celt Sound System. I wouldn't dream of saying any of them ought to be added. There are non-prog bands I like much more than some prog bands, there are non-prog albums I like much more than prog albums. My favourite Dire Straits album, by far, is one I acknowledge isn't prog (the debut).

I believe my arguments in favour of the album being prog have all been stated, rebutted and defended, so I won't bother using the volume of text to make them seem better. Crucial to my argument was that they fulfilled multiple criteria of the symphonic definition, and in a definite rock vein. Saying that other bands fulfil one such criterion and aren't here isn't actually really engaging with my argument.


But you have done it implying that is easier to add retro Prog rather than bands that according to you and almost nobody else, deserve to be here

That was exactly my point, yes. Wow. Big shock. Personally, however, I'm not busy adding those bands. I was simply saying that, just because it's easier to add those bands, there's no reason not to discuss a band I feel should be here. It's hardly a huge drain on manpower. I know I wasn't trying to deride 'retro-prog', but if you want to believe I was, go ahead - I could just as easily have said 'prog-metal' or 'post-rock'.

I agree King by Tor, but some of us tstill think we can change the mentality, focus in the priority of a site called:

Just one more thing TGM, because this has grown too much read the synonyms of Lush you quote: Im neither a native English speaker, but I think Synonyms means equivalent., and none of the highlighted has any relation with DS.