Stevie Wonder for Progressive Motown

Alitare wrote: Speaking of the folks who say motown is not rock, and thus, barred form inclusion, I ask: What makes motown closer to rock than ambient? We do have progressive electronic, and electronic music seems farther away from rock than motown does.

Yup. And Philippe will not add pure electronic, electronica, electroaccoustic or new age artists into Progressive Electronic. But since you are suggesting Stevie Wonder for Crossover not Prog Electronic it isn't relevant what the additions criteria for Prog Electronic are with regard to "rock".

Rabid wrote: He's not from a 'strictly progressive' background. The others are.   Ask yourself, tho .......how many reviews of his albums could/would be 'positive', on Prog Archives?   While he's an excellent musician, he's still 'just a dabbler' in the prog department.

I just wanted to share this excellent vid that the Pessimist posted in the Stevie Wonder Appreciation thread:

It will never happen, regardless there's more prog in Innervisions and Songs in the key of life than Radiohead, Muse or APP and plenty other artists in established categories.  It may be called motown or R&B, but seriously what's not ROCK about All Day Sucker? It would walk into a Zappa album. What's not jazz fusion about Contusion? If you have heard these albums and also Talking Book and Fulfillingness's First Finale and still say he doesn't belong here, I respect your opinion.  But I am pretty sure I Just Called to Say I Love You or Part Time Lover are bigger considerations for laughing his case away. Yet somehow, Mama or I can't Dance don't seem to be considerations for keeping out Genesis.  Yes, Genesis are established and influential prog masters, I know that's why they are here.  But how about acknowledging that there was a lot of progressive stuff going around in general in the 70s and it would not hurt the website to have them here at all. 

rogerthat wrote: But how about acknowledging that there was a lot of progressive stuff going around in general in the 70s and it would not hurt the website to have them here at all.

Well said! It strikes me as bizarre that people sl*g off and dismiss 1970s innovators while sheepishly treating every trendhopping modern busybody with the red carpet treatment.

Dean wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: rogerthat wrote: But how about acknowledging that there was a lot of progressive stuff going around in general in the 70s and it would not hurt the website to have them here at all.  Well said! It strikes me as bizarre that people sl*g off and dismiss 1970s innovators while sheepishly treating every trendhopping modern busybody with the red carpet treatment. Oh man, how can they be so narrow minded and blinkered - it's an outrage.

I mean... radiohead and muse? Whither progress!?

WalterDigsTunes wrote: Dean wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: rogerthat wrote: But how about acknowledging that there was a lot of progressive stuff going around in general in the 70s and it would not hurt the website to have them here at all.  Well said! It strikes me as bizarre that people sl*g off and dismiss 1970s innovators while sheepishly treating every trendhopping modern busybody with the red carpet treatment. Oh man, how can they be so narrow minded and blinkered - it's an outrage. I mean... radiohead and muse? Whither progress!?

I am sorry I cannot share your enthusiasm for such over generalizing . My point was more that 70s music seems to be judged against the best prog rock bands of the time and deemed not prog enough whereas the same standards are not applied to modern bands (by doing which I doubt much of neo prog or prog metal would qualify at all, actually practically nothing but the Avant/RIO scene).   If the idea is to be inclusive, then keeping folks who made progressive music in the 70s and then sold out in the 80s out of the umbrella seems to me to be favouring image over substance.  I cannot prove it because, barring some careless comments (re Scorpions debate), people don't say it in so many words but then if there are some reasons to do purely with the music for applying stricter standards for 70s bands, I don't know what they are.  I see prog more as a style of music and an approach to composition than as a flattering adjective with shifting goalposts depending on the band and era.

Rabid wrote:   I'm not sl*gging off Stevie Wonder at all. I recognize his contribution to modern music. I just don't think his progressive rock output is enough to justify inclusion to a site dedicated to progressive rock.

But a lot of prog is not ROCK at all, this is another issue that's swept under the carpet.  What's so ROCK about that Harmonium album in the top 100 (sorry I do know what it's called, can't spell it right now )?  What's so ROCK about Heresie?  What's ROCK about Shakti?  What's ROCK about Novella?  Swaddling Songs?  There are many, many examples of this.  I actually think one of the defining features of 70s prog (and in contradistinction with neo prog and prog metal) is that it frequently slots in a grey area that's neither rock, nor jazz, nor classical.  Just some completely new monster which, for want of a better word, is called prog.

Dean wrote: rogerthat wrote: Rabid wrote:   I'm not sl*gging off Stevie Wonder at all. I recognize his contribution to modern music. I just don't think his progressive rock output is enough to justify inclusion to a site dedicated to progressive rock.     But a lot of prog is not ROCK at all, this is another issue that's swept under the carpet.  What's so ROCK about that Harmonium album in the top 100 (sorry I do know what it's called, can't spell it right now )?  What's so ROCK about Heresie?  What's ROCK about Shakti?  What's ROCK about Novella?  Swaddling Songs?  There are many, many examples of this.  I actually think one of the defining features of 70s prog (and in contradistinction with neo prog and prog metal) is that it frequently slots in a grey area that's neither rock, nor jazz, nor classical.  Just some completely new monster which, for want of a better word, is called prog. Not that it is in any way relevant, but the origins/roots of progressive rock, and of those bands and albums you mention, was rock. Of course there are exceptions, for example were folk bands became folk-rock bands became progressive folk-rock bands, but that does not mean that all exceptions are valid.

The origins and possibly the inspiration for these bands to make music may have been rock but in substance it veers a long way from rock. Those were just a few cases off the cuff, there are many many prog albums from the era that have precious little relation to rock.   Even among the big bands, I would say only Yes and Jethro Tull consistently stayed close to rock territory.  The rest, especially King Crimson, made  large departures from rock. 

Actually, if the definition of what progressive rock is should derive from the defining albums of 69/70/71 thereabouts, then we get a very clear picture of what it is....and it starts to become a very narrow zone concentrated almost completely in the Avant/RIO territory after the late 70s.  There is a sea change in compositional approach from thereon which sounds gradual when heard in bands who did make prog rock to begin with but over time and with new bands, seems to be a different kind of music altogether.  But it seems prog rock is defined here as both what is prog rock in the above mentioned vein and 'progressive' bands.  This is what makes prog rock hard to define and makes it possible for everyone to have their own idea of what is prog , if there had been any serious attempt made to define it as style of music, it wouldn't be so confusing. I guess Cert1fied was absolutely right when he said somewhere else that Rush may have been at the root of the confusion in that their style bears passing resemblances to the prog bands before them but in substance is an entirely different approach. And because Rush are considered prog, everything that draws from Rush gets called prog too. 

All this is my opinion though. As you say, it is for those who run the site to decide what should be included in THEIR prog database. But I have no qualms about saying that I don't get a clear picture from that about what is prog at all.


Edited by rogerthat - July 11 2010 at 05:14