Grateful Dead- Not Even Prog-Related? Really?

earlyprog wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Actually, the GD make as much little sense as Jefferson Airplane.     Same meaning I suppose

lack of consistency...  nothing more .. nothing less. 


One gets added.. the other rejected.

It does amaze me that onecould find the Airplane worthy of being on the site.. yet find the more progressive of the two (by any objective reasoning).. not worthy of inclusion.

that is in large part why I have given up on the site as anything more than a place where people I like hang out. One is popular.. another apparently has a stigma... due to it's fans as that boogyman to some here...as  a 'jam band'.  If so...then what the hell was the Airplane.. anyone ever listen to a live album from them? They never played the same song the same way twice ... in Grace's words..  they lifted off into the atmosphere every night.. never knowing the flight-plan.. or where they were landing haha. 
  


Edited by micky - February 04 2010 at 19:11

Chris S wrote: Spooky Tooth not here- WTF

Re Spooky Tooth: I've always heard them defined as Progressive Rock, and not seeing them here - while bands like Budgie have been included without too much of an effort - looks a bit odd. But then, I've also learned enough in my years here to keep out of debate when it gets too heated. 

In fairness to ST, Maybe we have not petitioned PA with them enough....As for GD I think this needs to go to the panel of Admin again and possibly Max for decision.

Chris S wrote: In fairness to ST, Maybe we have not petitioned PA with them enough....As for GD I think this needs to go to the panel of Admin again and possibly Max for decision.

Chris, I'm not opposed to or in support of GD, just paying attention and seeing if I can learn something new, but having another PR/proto vote right after we just had one about 3 months ago is kind of pointless, they would still not make it.

Feel free to contact M@x if you want, it could help. After discussing Hendrix for months I finally found he had been approved by M@x long ago, they were just waiting for someone who would do the research and present the solid argument for his inclusion. I spent a lot of time on it and you can read all my arguments in the Hendrix bio. As I have stated many times, I'm not a Hendrix fan boy, but I do love musicology and I like to see it done right. Because of the work I put into preparing his addition and anticipating any expected arguments, M@x thanked for the smoothest controversial artist addition yet

P.S. For another example on how to get this done, check Mike and Cert's arguments in favor of Metallica, they did change people's minds, it can be done.

Re Spooky Tooth, give me a couple days here and I will take them to the proto team for a vote.

P.S. Re Dead, You could also PM various admins and have them visit this thread for further education or persuasions, but just having another vote without someone producing the defining arguments that help change people's minds would probably not change much.

Edited by Easy Money - February 05 2010 at 09:43

^^Yeah, shows you can accomplish anything on this site just you put the effort into it  (bear with me Easy Money, I will continue haunting you for that one ).

Edited by earlyprog - February 05 2010 at 12:01

I wish the music could speak for itself.

Easy Money wrote: Logan wrote: I wish the music could speak for itself. It can, but you have to present it to people. I'm sorry, but the proto/PR team is not aware of all the music in recorded history. Find the music that will speak for itself and present it with some kind of knowledgable timeline with what else was happening in the world of prog. In many cases the music alone may not be too borderline to be convincing enough, that's where an ability to show how prog was developing and how this band contributed is important.

I know.  When it comes to controversial additions, there's often a good counter-argument for every argument (hopefully the more passionate person doesn't win through sheer persistence).  Often the naysayers are not sufficiently familiar with the music or are thinking along narrow lines (and sometimes those who are persistent just don't understand the expectations).

Of course one has to direct to the appropriate music and provide sufficient samples for evaluation, and one should try to provide sufficient information when suggesting something.  PR/PP works differently from other categories, and you have criteria which should be met so I recognise that a case must be made for it.  The music itself (the examples used for evaluation) should be compelling.  I think when you have 40 pages of arguments and counter-arguments on whether a band should be included, then it's probably best not to include it (though it might be considerable later when PA's parameters have changed -- though those change after some additions). 

One can argue 'til one's blue in the face, but after (or before such consideration) providing a basic framework for why something should be included (keep it simple, else it gets too convoluted), it is the qualities of the music that one has directed people to (those who decide are familiar with) that are paramount.  Discussion between the suggester and evaluator is sometimes warranted to pick each-other's brains -- figure it out if a difficult case....

EDIT: Every addition, no matter what category requires analysis based on the music available to one (which requires direction).  A well-prepared suggestion is a good guide for the evaluators (where to start, what to expect, provides samples etc.) With some, it requires less thought to determine category and appropriateness (some are no-brainers) so it's really just wishful thinking that the music one directs people to can always speak for itself.  There will always be disagreements since we all have different opinions and even disagreement about where we want to see the site go.  Sometimes I'm very indecisive when it comes to suggestions so seek out more opinions. Personally, though I have no opinion on Grateful Dead, I'm of a more inclusive mindset (though I have my biases against more AOR/ Prog-lite bands coming in and would rather see more experimental and genre-bending ones that wouldn't necessarily be typically associated with Prog proper).  Personally, if this were my site, I think I'd scrap the influence part of the equation as it's the music itself that is more important (can it be described as a form of progressive rock, or rock-related music in some cases, if not an established form of Progressive Rock) but that's not to say that your parameters are wrong -- just personal preference and that I think it would help broaden the database to include more bands/artists that were delving into, imo, interesting avenues of rock, or rocky music (many of which never became popular, but if they had, they might have been influential).  It's easier now thanks to the internet to find out about obscure projects and sample interesting music.  I think there's a lot out there that never received a wide release, but from a compositional standpoint could fit PR or PP -- some have little info available as they are obscure.  Luckily for the Prog categories, we don't have to worry about influence -- if enough of the team agree that a sufficient amount of the music the team is familiar with fits the parameters of a "prog" category, it's accepted (unless deemed controversial in which case there are some different expectations, and of course a PR/PP band is more likely to be "controversial" -- so can understand tighter measures that help to justify the case, and help people to understand the significance).

Actually, influence can always play a part, and maybe is important in considering many acts for Proto-Prog (for instance, not saying he should be here, but if Stockhausen were included due to his influence).


Edited by Logan - February 05 2010 at 14:57

I, on the other hand, am a Hendrix fan, wanted him here, and appreciated Easy Money's arguments.  The addition of Hendrix was monumental, and I don't remember any backlash.  Great job on that.

Edited by Logan - February 05 2010 at 19:47